Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the judgment dated 1.9.1984 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut in S.S.C. Revision No. 508 of 1983 whereby the revision has been allowed, fee judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 21.11.1983 has been set aside and the suit has been decreed for ejectment of the petitioners. Facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Baij Nath filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 240 of 1981 for ejectment of the petitioners from House Nos. 47 and 32 situated in Mohalla Hansipura Suraj Kund Road, Meerut City, Meerut on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petitioners filed their written statements and contested the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the rent of the premises in dispute was Rs. 34/ - per month whereas according to the tenant the rent was Rs. 18/ - per month of premises No. 32 and Rs. 10.60 P. of premises No. 47. Thus according to the petitioners the total rent was Rs. 28.60 P. per month. Further the petitioners stated in their written statements that upto date rent till 30.11.1980 has been deposited by them and there was no arrears. The J.S.C.C. Meerut after considering the material on record vide judgment dated 21.11.983 came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 28.60 P. per month and not 34/ - per month as claimed by the respondent No. 2. Secondly the Trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner was not in default and had paid upto date rent till 30.11.1980. On these findings the suit was dismissed.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 508 of 1983 which was transmitted to the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut for disposal. The revisional Court vide judgment dated 1.9.1994 allowed the revision, set aside the finding of facts on rate of rent and arrears recorded by the Trial Court and held that the rate of rent was Rs. 34/ - per month and that the tenant was in default and thus decreed the suit after setting aside judgment dated 21.11.1983. Against the judgment of the revisional Court the tenant has filed this present petition. I have heard Shri Sidhanshu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri G.C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Despite the fact that the case was taken up in the revised list no one appeared for the respondents to argue. The counter and rejoinder affidavits are on record and have been perused.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the revisional Court while exercising power under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 had no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding on question of facts after appraisal of evidence. The findings recorded by the Trial Court could not be substituted or interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. For this proposition he has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Prem Kumar v. Sant Prasad Nigam, 1979 ARC Page 303. (ii) Sri Prayag Narain Gaur v. Sri Muneshwar Das and another, 1979 ARC Page 341.;