- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India by the petitioner-plain tiff who is aggrieved by an order dated 24-1-2004 passed by the revisional Court whereby the revisional Court al lowed the revision filed by the respon dent-tenant by setting aside the decree passed by the Court of Small Causes dated 18th October 2000 and dis missed the suit fhed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit age Jnst the defendant before the Small Cause Court for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant-respondent on the ground that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent. THErefore, the tenancy was terminated by serving the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on the petitioner-tenant asking to vacate the premises and pay the arrears. THE defendant neither made payment nor vacated the premises. Thus the plaintiff filed the suit aforesaid. THE defendant-respondent denied the allegations made in the plaint and set up the case that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. Thus suit is not maintainable. On the hearing of the parties the trial Court for mulated following questions to be decided: (1) Whether the defendant is tenant of the accommodation in dispute? (2) Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent? If so, what is its effect? (3) Whether defendant is in arrears of rent and the plaintiff is entitled for arrears and damages. If so, what amount? (4) Whether the defendant is liable for ejectment? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief? If so, to what relief? On the question of relationship between landlord and tenant the trial Court found that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff and defendant. It further found that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent. Thus the suit was decreed for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment. Ag grieved thereby the defendant-respon dent preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court by the order impugned has found that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant be tween plaintiff and defendant. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit. The revisional Court, therefore, set aside the order passed by the trial Court and dis missed the suit filed by the plaintiff-landlord. Thus this writ petition. Before this Court learned Coun sel for the petitioner has submitted that while dismissing the suit the revisional Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction in view of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Sukla, 1979 A. W. C. 746. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said decision. Learned Counsel for the respondent also relied upon paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said decision. Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 are quoted below: " (18) The Court deciding a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has to satisfy itself that the trial Courts' decree or order is according to law. Of course, the Revisional Court should keep in mind the Supreme Court's dictum fn Naicker case (supra) that a wrong decision on fact is also a decision according to law. (19) 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 inadmissible evidence. In such cases, 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 ques tion of law or some preliminary point of law, viz. Validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision. (20) But, if it finds that a particular find ing 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 an issue of fact for itself. If it can not dispose of the case adequately without a finding on a particular issue of act, it should send the case back after laying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, assess it and determine an issue of fact. "
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respon dent has further relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court reported in 1988 (1) ARC 521, Karim Ulla v. IIIrd Addl. District. Judge; Allahabad and Ors. , wherein the aforesaid Division Bench decision has been considered by the Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in paragraph 12 has ruled as under: "no re-assessment of the evidence was required and, as such from the principles laid down-by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Lakshmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla (supra) a well as in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi (supra), the Revisional Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Judge Small Cause Court in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Since no re-assessment of the evidence was required, it would not be necessary to remand the case. In the cir cumstances, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, is without substance. " In view of the Single Judge decision in which the Single Judge has taken note of Division Bench, the learned Judge relied on the Supreme Court decision I do not find that the sub mission made by the learned Counsel for the petition can be accepted. Thus the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.;