- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 17-12-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 remanding the suit to the Judge Small Causes Court to decide it afresh.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed J. S. C. C. Suit No. 193 of 1985 for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment. against the petitioner alleging that the rent was due against him since 10-9-1993. He gave a notice of demand to the petitioner on 22-11-1984 demanding the arrears of rent terminating his tenancy. THE notice was served on the petitioner on 24-3-1985 but the rent was not paid. THE petitioner contested the suit and denied that he did not pay the rent. THE trial Court dismissed the suit. THE landlord-respondent filed revision again fit this order. THE revisional Court has retained the matter to the Judge Small Causes Court. Ave heard Sri A. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respon dent. There [were two questions involved in the suit. Firstly, as to whether the petitioner was defaulter in payment of ar rears of rent and secondly, whether he was entitled to this benefits of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act ). Respondent No. 1, in para 8 of his judg ment, has recorded a finding that the petitioner, before filing tie written-statement, has deposited Rs. 700. The rent due against him was Rs. 403. 25 and taxes Rs. 175. 90 total Rs. 579. 10. If the cost of the suit and the| counsel fee is included this amount shill exceed. The Revisional Court remanded the matter to consider this aspect. !for this purpose, it was not necessary td remand the matter. If it was purely a mathematical question as to how much amount was to be deposited on the date of first hearing and as to what amount was deposited by the tenant-petitioner, could be calculated and decided by the Revisional Court itself. The petitioner was claiming the benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act and it could have been decided by the Court.
(3.) THE Court can remand a case when material evidence has not been considered by Judge Small Causes Court or certain point has not been decided. In absence of any such direction as to on what point the trial Court has to decide the matter, the remand order was unjustified. In Laxmi Kishore arid others v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1979 ACJ 473, it was held that the Court exercising revisional power under Section 25 of the Act, if it cannot dispose of the case adequatel without a finding on a par ticular facts, it can send the case back after laying down the proper guideline. In view of the above, the writ peti tion is allowed and the impugned order dated 17-12-1997 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall hear the revision afresh in accordance with law. In case he finds that the material evidence has been ignored while deciding an issue or certain points have not been decided, it can record a finding indicating therein a reasonable ground for remand. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the revision within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.;