- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. C. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, appearing for the contest ing respondent No. 3.
(2.) PRESENT petition arises out of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. The suit was filed by respondent No. 3 on the ground of default. The petitioner, who was defen dant in the said suit, contested the suit and pleaded that he was not the defaulter and further he was entitled to the benefit of sub section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. He has further pleaded that entire rent was deposited by the petitioner in the case under Section 30 of the Act. The trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the record, recorded the findings on relevant issues in favour of the petitioner It was held that he was not defaulter as the rent was already deposited by him under Section 30. In view of the said findings it was observed that it was not necessary to decide as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of sub section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Having recorded the said findings the suit filed by respondent No. 3 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, revision was filed by respondent No. 3 before the District Judge under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court and allowed the revision and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by the revisional Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the trial Court after perusing the record of the case, as well as the record of the case under Sec tion 30, which was summoned on an ap plication filed by the petitioner, recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the petitioner has deposited entire ar rears of rent after the same was refused by the Landlord. The deposit made by the petitioner was held to be valid in conse quence of which it was held that petitioner was not defaulter. The finding recorded by the trial Court on the question of default being finding of fact, it was not open to the revisional Court in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act to interfere with the finding of fact. It was further submitted that in the event the revisional Court and decree passed by it were not in accordance with Law it could set aside the findings recorded by the trial Court and send back the matter for decision afresh but in any view of the matter it was not open to it to substitute its own findings for the findings recorded by the trial Court and allow the revision.
(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that there was nothing on the record to substan tiate as to whether the amount in question was deposited by the petitioner under Sec tion 30 of the Act. Therefore, the revisional Court was justified in holding that the said deposit was not made and the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent. He has further submitted that the revisional Court rightly set aside the findings recorded by the trial Court and allowed the revision and decreed the suit. I have considered the rival submis sions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.;