- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. A J. S. C. C. Suit No. 198 of 1984 under the provision of Small Causes Court Act was filed by John G. Singh alleging that defendant Edwin Singh (his real brother) was his tenant and he was liable to ejectment. Suit was decreed by the Court of Judge Small Causes vide judgment and order dated 20-2-1986 the defendant, who lost before the trial Court filed S. C. C. Revision No. 104 of 1986, Edwin Singh v. John G. Singh. The District Judge, Meerut as Revisional Court allowed the revision.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved now the plaintiff has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order passed by Revisional Court (respondent No. 2 ). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Copy of the Memo of Revision No. 104 of 1986 has been annexed as An-nexure-7 to the writ petition. Ground No. 5 at page No. 42 of the paper book reads as under: "that the learned Lower Court ought to have returned the plaint under Section 23 of the J. S. C. C. Act to the plaintiff for presenting it to the Court having jurisdiction. " The Revisional Court framed three issues namely: " (1) "whether the plaintiff was the landlord and owner of the property, in suit, (2) Whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit and (3) To what relief, if any, was the plaintiff entitled?" While considering point No. 1 above, the Revisional Court came to the con clusion that Judge Small Causes Court committed manifest illegality in not recording landlord-tenant relationship. The Judge Small Causes Court without even framing an issue as to whether the defendant was the tenant on behalf of the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 75 per month or not, merely framed an issue whether the plaintiff was the owner and the landlord of the house in question.
(3.) THE Revisional Court however, did not at all touch point No. 2. Learned coun sel for the respondent has placed relevant passage of the impugned judgment to show that the Revisional Court has dis cussed the point. Learned counsel for the respondent has failed to substantiate the point and conceded at the Bar that the said point has not been discussed at all. It is further submitted that Revisional Court has not recorded finding of fact on point No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Revisional Court in exercise of powers under Section 23 provincial S. C. C. Act had exceeded in its jurisdiction and according to him the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to record the findings of its own. The said settled position has not been pointed out at the Bar, hence I do not propose to refer to the decision on the issue. In view of the above, it is found that Revisional Court has committed manifest errors in not remand ing the case as stated above. In view of the above the impugned judgment and order dated 20-2-1986 passed by respondent No. 1, the operation of the impugned judg ment (contained order) in the impugned order dated July 14,1986 is not set aside. The J. S. C. C. Suit No. l9s/s4johng. Singh v. Edwin Singh is being remitted back to the District Judge, Meerut J. S. C. C. Revision No. 104 of 1986 for deciding the suit afresh by noting the points contained in the revisional order and record its findings without being influenced in manner by the observations in the present judgment of this Court, or the judgment passed by the respondent No. 2.;