Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M. Islam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 7.9.1995 passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 7 of 1994 passed by the VIIth, Additional District Judge, Saharanpur.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent -landlord had filed a Small Causes Suit No. 21 of 1990 against the petitioners for arrears of rent and eviction. The Trial Court found that the service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not affected in accordance with law in as much as notice was got printed in a Hindi newspaper. The Trial Court held that the service of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act could not have been done by publication in the newspaper. Notice had to be signed either by the landlord or the person authorized by him. Consequently the Trial Court was of the view that the said service was not sufficient. However, the Trial Court decreed the suit for arrears of lent at the rate of Rs. 25 per month with effect from 1.6.1987 and dismissed the suit for eviction. The respondent landlord filed a S.C.C. revision and the Revisional Court has upset the finding of the Trial Court on the service of notice and has held that even if the notice is not sent by R.P.A.D. and is sent by postal certificate only it would be deemed that the service has been effected. The Revisional Court has held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent in as much as the claim of rent by the respondent -landlord was at the rate of Rs. 150 per month and the petitioner had not been able to establish his case that the rent was Rs. 25/ - per month. The Revisional Court has therefore, proceeded to allow the revision and decreed the suit of the respondent -landlord for eviction and arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150 per month.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revisional Court in exercise of its power under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has got limited jurisdiction and it can only set aside the finding of the Trial Court in case it comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court were perverse or otherwise and the same were not recorded in accordance with law. The Revisional Court having set aside the finding of the Trial Court could not have substituted its own finding and it sought to have remitted the matter to the Trial Court for re -decision in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and the finding recorded with respect to the service by postal certificate is itself illegal.;