Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and pe rused the record. The petitioner instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 1989 against the contesting respondent No. 3, the tenant for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages etc., on the pleas inter alia that the defendant tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent for the period 1st of April, 1986 to 1st of February, 1987. It was also pleaded that the tenant has carried out material alteration in the property in dispute, which has diminished its value and utility. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the statutory grounds of arrears of rent and substan tial damages to the building as envisaged under section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. A notice dated 2nd of November, 1988 was given demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The said notice was returned with en dorsement of refusal. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another notice dated 19th November, 1988. It also met the same fate. Hence, the suit was filed with the allegation that presently the shop in question can be let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 1, 000/-. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations. It was stated that the defendant-tenant is not defaulter in payment of rent, the ar rears of rent has been deposited along with the other dues under section 20 (4) of the Act and the tenant has not diminished the value or utility of the shop in question. The further defence was that the arrears of rent was sent to the land lord before the second notice by pay order and money order which were refused. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.
(2.) THE Trial Court framed the points for determination and ultimately by the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 1997 decreed the suit with cost for recovery of arrears of rent, damages, taxes and eviction of the contesting re spondent. THE mesne profit was awarded at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. THE said decree was carried in S.C.C. Revision No. 243 of 1997 by the defendant-tenant. THE Court below by the impugned order dated 12.1.2000 has set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said remand order the present writ petition has been filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court was not justified in passing the remand order and restoring the matter to the Trial Court. He submits that all the material is on the record and if some material was wrongly ignored by the Trial Court, it was open to the Revisional Court to have taken into consideration the said material on record. He further submits that the Revisional Court is not justified in observing that there were two notices and both of them were returned with endorsement of refusal but the Trial Court has not recorded a specific finding with regard to the second notice dated 19th of November, 1988. The submission is that since the suit is based on the notice dated 19th of November, 1988 and the Trial Court was considering the suit on the basis of the said notice and has recorded a specific finding that there was refusal of the notice dated 19th of November, 1988, thus, the Trial Court has not omitted in considering the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the defendant tenant, on the other hand, submits that since it was found by the Revisional Court that the material piece of evidence was ignored by the Trial Court and the findings recorded by the Trial Court was not satisfactory, the Revisional Court has committed no wrong by remanding the matter to the Trial Court. Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court would show that the Trial Court has taken into considera tion the material which were placed before it. The Trial Court on the basis of the material recorded certain findings. If the said findings are vitiated or in any manner the judgment of the Trial Court is not satisfactory, in such circum stance it has been held, time and again, that no remand order should be passed. It is duty of the higher Court to have taken into consideration the material available on record. Time and again, it has been said that by passing a remand order the time and money spent go waste. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 strenuously submits that since the matter was being heard by the Trial Court in exercise of its power under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, the Revisional Court has rightly remanded the matter back as it has not reappreciated the facts. The said argument in my considered view is not tenable. If a Revisional Court thinks that a material piece of evi dence was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court, it is always open to the Revisional Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act to consider the said relevant material also. However, it does not entitle a Revisional Court to reappreciate the question of fact and record a different finding.
(3.) IT was rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at any rate, the Revisional Court should not have permitted the parties to lead fresh evidence as sufficient opportunity was granted by the Trial Court to the parties to lead the evidence. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that in the present case passing of the order of remand is not jus tified. The Revisional Court should decide the revision on the basis of the ma terial available on record keeping in view the limited jurisdiction available to it as provided under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.;