- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. The present petition arises out of the S. C. C. Suit No. 20 of 1978 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-5-1981 passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of revisional power conferred upon him under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. 2 Petitioner filed the said suit for ejectment of respondent No. 3 from the shop situated in Mohalla Mardan-naka Kotwali Road, Banda. It was pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No 3 was a tenant from 1-1-1975 on monthly rent of Rs. 60 + Rs. 5 towards electricity charges. The respondent No. 3 did not pay rent from 1-11-1976 and also caused damage to the shop in question, therefore, a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served upon him on 9-2-1978. The respondent No. 3 failed to pay arrear of rent and to vocate the shop in dispute, therefore, the said suit was filed. The respondent No. 3 was also liable to ejectment on the ground of denial of title of the petitioner. 3. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 3 who has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. He claimed that he was inoccupation of the shop in question as licencee of Nagar Palika since 1989 and not as the tenant of the petitioner. He also referred to the litigation in Civil Court between Abdul Majid and Smt. Noor Bano. He also claimed that there was an agreement entered into between him and Smt. Noor Bano in respect of the shop in dispute on the basis of which he himself constructed the said shop and was in possession of the same in his own right and that the suit was filed by the petitioner with wrong allegations and the same was liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, categorical findings on various issues involved in the case. It was held that there existed relationship of landlord and the tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The said respondent was in-occupation of the shop in question as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60. It was also held that the petitioner had every right to institute the suit and rent since 1-11-1976 in respect of the shop in question was outsanding against the said respondent. It was also held that in spite of service of the notice of demand and termi nation of tenancy upon the respondent No. 3, he failed to pay arrears of rent within thirty days, consequently, he was a defaulter within the meaning and term used under Section 20 (a) of U. P. Act No 13 of 1972. On the legal and technical relevant issues the findings were recorded by the trial court in favour of the petitioner. 5. Having recorded that said findings, which are based on relevant evidence on the record, the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 10-11-1979. 6. Respondent No. 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court filed S. C. C. Revision No. 31 of 1979 before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 reversed the findings recorded by the trial court and was pleased to allow the. revision by his judgment and order dated 7-5- 1991. As stated above Shri Rafat Ali Khan, the landlord of the shop io question has approached this Court and filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the record of the case. Shri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that findings recorded by the trial court were all findings of fact which were based on relevant evidence on record. It was, therefore, not open to the respondent No. 1 in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act to re- appraise the evidence and to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the following cases:- 1. M/s. Gur Narain Jagat Narain & Co. , Lucknow v. M/s. Motor and General Sales Ltd. Lucknow & others, 1980 ALJ 509.
(2.) SMT. Vidyawati Devi v. Tulsi Ram Saxena, 1979 ALJ 452. Smt. Ram Piyari v. Budh Sen & others, 1977 Allahabad 391. 8. In the aforesaid cases it has consistently been held by this court that the revisional court in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act has got no jurisdiction to reappraise to evidence and to reverse the findings recorded by the trial court on question on fact and substitute his own findings. It has further been held that in the event the revisional court is not satisfied with the findings recorded by the trial court on question of fact he could at the best remand the case to the trial court. In any view of the matter revisional court has got no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and to reverse the findings of fact. 9. On the other hand, Shri M. A. Quadeer, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the findings recorded by the trial court were all illegal against the evidence on the record and the revisional court was legally justified in reversing the said findings and allowing the revision. He has also placed reliance upon the following decisions : - 1. Haji Mohd. Sayeed v. XI Additional District Judge, Lucknow & others, 1994 (1) ARC 452. 2. Smt. Sakina v. The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut & others, 1983 ARC 362. 3. Mahendra Prakash v. The IV Additional District Judge, Jalaun & others, 1983 ARC 273. Wc 746. 10. In the aforesaid cases this Court has taken the view that when the findings recorded by the trial court were not based on any evidence or were in respect of jurisdictional fact or were vitiate by errors of law this Court was entitled to interfere in the said findings and to upset the same. 11. In the present case the findings recorded by the trial court were based on relevant evidence they could not be said to be based on no evidence there was no jurisdictional fact involved in the case and no other errors of law have been pointed out by the revisional court. On the other hand, the revisional court has assumed the jurisdiction which was not vested in him. As would appear from the following observations made by the court below:- "after hearing the learned counsel for parties. I find that the learned civil judge (J. S. C. C.) had grossly failed to consider the nature and effect of previous litigation in suit No. 170/65, Abdul Majid v. Smt. Noor Bono and others and other Suit No. 218/68, Noor Bano y. Nagar Palika, Judgment in the aforesaid suit had for reaching effect upon the nature of the suit on the controversies raised thereunder. The evidence should, therefore, be reappraised in the light of previous litigations. " 12. I am constrained to say that learned District Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in making aforesaid observations and holding that the evidence was liable to ba appraised by him. As stated ab> ve, even assuming without ad mitting learned District Judge was not in agreement with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. He instead of reappraising the evidence and recording the findings should have remanded the case to the trial court with such observations and directions as were necessary to meet the end. , of justice in the case but ia any view of the matter and particularly in view of the law laid down by this court it was not open to the learned District Judge to reappraise the evidence and to upset the binding recorded by the trial court and to substi tute his own findings. Without going into other questions involved in the case, the judgment and order passed by the court below deserves to be set aside. The case is liable to be remanded to the revisional court for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. 13. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. Judgment and order dated 7-5-1981 is quashed. The case is remanded to the respondent No. 1 for decision afresh in the light of the observation made above. Petition allowed. .;