FATIMA BEGUM Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Zahoor Khan, who originally filed this petition challenge an order dated 26.2.1985 passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge, Jhansi, whereby he allowed the landlord -respondent revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act being SCC Revision No. 262 of 1980 and setting aside the decree of dismissal, decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. I have heard Sri B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.A. Shah, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE landlord respondent filed a Small Cause Suit No. 334 of 1970 claiming that the said shop was in the tenancy of Zahoor Khan on a monthly rent of Rs. 7 and rent amounting to Rs. 182 was due for the period 11 -2 -1967 to 10 -4 -1969. The shop was re -constructed during the period 11.4.1969 onwards and was let out again to the said tenant from 11.1.1970 under a new contract of tenancy of Rs. 30 per month and defendant had not paid the rent from 11.1.1970 onwards. The defendant contested the suit. He admitted that he was tenant at the rate of Rs. 7 per month but denied that there was any new contract of tenancy. He denied that the shop was re -constructed and his contention was that only some repairs were carried out which included the installation of a shutter in place of the original door leaves. His contention was that he has been regularly paying the rent to the plaintiff. The trial Court formulated three questions as under: -

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that in exercise of powers of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and record findings of fact of its own and that in the present case the learned Addl. District Judge had reappraised the entire evidence like an Appellate Court and, therefore, acted illegally in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. He placed reliance on a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Laxmi Kishore v. Har Prasad Shukla : 1981 ARC 545, this Court observed that while deciding a revision under Section 25 of the Act the Revisional Court has to satisfy itself that the trial court's decree or order is according to law. If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. Same will be the case where the finding is based only on inadmissible evidence. In such cases, the Court will be justified in deciding the question of fact itself because the evidence is all one way. If it finds that a particular finding of fact is vitiated by an error of law, it has power to pass such order as the justice of the case requires; but it has no jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence in order to determine an issue of fact itself. The Court also observed that a wrong decision on facts by a Competent Court is also a decision according to law. The Revisional Court has no power to de -novo examine the findings of fact reached by the Court. The Court stressed, upon the distinction between the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure. This view has been consistently followed by this Court. In Fakir Chand v. IInd Additional District judge, 1984 (1) ARC 68, the same view was reiterated and it was observed that if the trial Court had failed to consider a piece of evidence. Re visional Court can only remand the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration. In Smt. Radhaji Maharani v. VIIth Addl. District Judge, 1983 (1) ARC 39, also the same view was taken and was held that where a revisional order has been passed after reversing the finding on questions of fact the revisional order deserves to be quashed.