- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. The petitioner is the landlord of the house in question. The respondent No. 2 is the tenant. Petitioner filed two suits, Le. J. S. C. C. Suit No. 412 of 1978 for recovery of arrears of rent from May, 1978 to October, 1978 and thereafter he filed another suit, i. e. J. S. C. C. Suit No. 188 of 1979 for arrears of rent from November, 1976 to June, 1979 and also for the ejectment of the tenant. Both the suits were consolidated together. According to" the plaintiff the rate of rent was Rs. 175 per month. The respondent No. 2-defendant filed a written statement denying the al legations made in both the suits. Accord ing to him the rate of rent was Rs. 70 per month and also there was a dispute about the extent of accommodation between the parties. Both the suits were decreed on 11-8-1981. Thereafter by the order of revisional Court dated 9-1-1982 they were remanded back to the trial Court. These suits were again decreed on 16-3-1982. The revisional Court again remanded the case back on 23-9-1982. It is against this order the plaintiff has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the rate of rent is Rs. 175 per month. THE trial Court rightly did not consider the letter of the Executive Engineer as it is not admissible in law and came to the con clusion that the rate of rent is Rs. 175 per month. THE trial Court also came to the conclusion that the rent from May, 1978 and onwards was due which is more than four months. THE trial Court also came to the conclusion that the notice was rightly served and it also gave finding regarding extent of accommodation. According to the trial Court the premises in dispute consist of two rooms, three verandah, one court-yard, kitchen, latrine and bath room. Aggrieved by this order the tenant filed a revision. The revisional Court again con sidered the evidence on record and has remanded the matter for re- decision. The findings regarding rate of rent, service of notice, extent of accommodation are find ings of fact. These could not be interfered in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. No illegality has been pointed out by the revisional Court for remanding the matter back to the trial Court to re- consider. So far as the finding regarding rate of rent is concerned the letter given by the Execu tive Engineer is not admissible under law. It was not rightly considered by the trial Court. On this basis the matter could not be remanded back by the revisional Court. So far as the rest of findings are concerned they were given after considering the evidence on record. They could not be interfered with. In view of the same the judgment dated 23-9-1982 is hereby quashed and that of the trial Court dated 16-3-1982 is restored. The writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed. .;