Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Radhey Shyam learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Misra holding brief of Sri A.K. Gupta for contesting respondent. The petitioner/landlord filed a S.C.C. suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of tenant/respondents. It was also pleaded that without permission the shop in dispute has been sublet to the respondent No. 3 who has made material alteration. During the pendency of the proceedings tenant Dori Lal died and in his place the respondent No. 2 Mohit Kumar who claimed to be adopted son on the basis of adoption deed dated 10.10.1990 was substituted.
(2.) THE Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 6.9.2000 recorded specific findings that the shop in dispute was sublet by the tenant to respondent No. 3 and his position is that of sub -tenant; the rent with effect from January 1989 has not been paid; material alteration has been made. On the basis of aforesaid findings the suit of the ejectment was decreed. Feeling aggrieved respondent No. 2 alone filed a revision under section 25 of the Act. The respondent No. 1 vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2001 has allowed the revision and dismissed the suit. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Revisional Court has wrongly and illegally reappraised the evidence and substituted its own findings.
(3.) IN reply, it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent that if order under revision is found to be perverse or based on wrong conclusion the Revisional Court has ample power to set aside the judgment.;