Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Saxena appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2. The petitioner/landlord filed a SCC suit for arrears of rent and ejectment alleging therein that the respondent was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 28/ - and was in arrears from 1.1.1982 to 26.6.1984. The suit was contested on the ground that the rate of rent was only Rs. 8/ - per month and the rent was sent by money order which was refused as such there was no default. The Judge Small Causes Court after analyzing the evidence brought on record recorded a finding that rate of rent was Rs. 28/ - per month and the respondent No. 1 was defaulter and decreed the suit. The revision filed by the tenant/respondent was allowed and it was held that rate of rent was Rs. 8/ - per month and there was no default.
(2.) THE only ground taken in the writ petition and argued before me is that Revisional Court while exercising power conferred by section 25 of the Provisional Small Causes Court Act (for short 'the Act') has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and substitute its own finding. The reliance in support of contention has been placed in the case of Bimal Kishor Palhval v. 4th Additional District Judge, 2005 (59) ALR 1. In reply it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the respondents that if order under revision is found to be perverse or based on wrong conclusion as gross injustice has been done, the Revisional Court has ample power to set aside such judgment.
(3.) THE ambit and scope of revisional power conferred by section 25 of the Act has been well settled by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla : 1981 ARC 545. It has been observed by the Division Bench as follows: - - If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. Same will be the case where the finding is based only on admissible evidence. In such case, the Court will be justified in deciding the question of fact itself because the evidence is all one way. No assessment is needed. The Court can also decide the revision if only a question of law or some preliminary point of law, viz. validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision. But, if it finds that a particular finding of fact is vitiated by an error of law, it has power to pass such order, as the justice of the case requires; but it has no jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence in order to determine issue of fact for itself. If it cannot dispose of the case adequately without a finding on a particular issue of fact, it should send the case back after laying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, asses it and determine an issue of fact.;