Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlady respondent No. 2 Smt. Iqbali Begum instituted suit for eviction against tenant petitioner in the form of SCC Suit No. 79 of 1988 on the file of JSCC, Meerut. Accommodation in dispute consists of two rooms situate on the first floor rent of which is Rs. 12.50/ - per month. In the plaint, it was stated that there was no latrine in the tenancy of the petitioner and he was permitted to use the latrine situate on the ground floor which was in tenancy of another tenant Mohd. Hanif however due to differences between the two tenants, petitioner constructed latrine and a parda wall in the accommodation in his tenancy occupation hence he was liable to eviction on the ground of damage to the building and material alteration as provided under section 20(2)(b) and (c) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was further stated that latrine was constructed in the open space on the first floor, which was also in the tenancy occupation of the tenant petitioner. Petitioner pleaded that he had not constructed the latrine and parda wall and these constructions were already there when building in dispute was let out to him.
(2.) IT was stated in the plaint that petitioner was tenant of two rooms on the first floor. In order to prove his case plaintiff filed extract of house tax assessment register. According to the plaintiff in the said extract (copy of which has also been filed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition) no latrine was shown in the property in occupation of petitioner. The Trial Court did not believe the said assertion for two reasons firstly the Trial Court held that number of the property did not tally. In the notice plaintiff stated that number of the accommodation in dispute was 67 while in the extract of house tax register number was mentioned as 62 to 66 (old) and 35 (new). The second ground taken by the Trial Court was that in the extract of house tax register, property in occupation of the petitioner was mentioned as one room while admittedly he was tenant of two rooms. The Trial Court therefore concluded that no new construction was made by the tenant. The suit was therefore dismissed on 27.10.1990. Against the said judgment and decree landlady respondent No. 2 filed SCC Revision No. 259 of 1990. Xth A.D.J., Meerut allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 7.9.1991; set -aside judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the said judgment and order of the Revisional Court.
(3.) REVISIONAL Court held that "while deciding revision under section 25 of the Act the Court is competent to look into the findings of the fact if it has caused miscarriage of justice." The Revisional Court was not correct. In revision under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, pure findings of fact can not be disturbed. At another place Revisional Court held that "therefore the issue of material alteration is to be decided on the basis of documentary evidence as well as the circumstances of the case.";