Girija Shanker Trivedi and Others vs Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—This petition was heard on 5th April, 2002, When the case was taken up in the revised list, Shri G.L. Tripathi appeared for the petitioner and no one appeared for the respondent. Sri Tripathi was heard in support of the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now, here are the reasons.

Petitioner who is landlord filed a suit before the Judge Small Causes Court against the respondent No. 2 u/s 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being suit No. 92 of 1979, on the ground of arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent tenant and also on the ground that the tenant without the consent of the landlord in writing have carried out material alteration in the accommodation which diminished Its value. The trial court by its order dated 8th February, 1984, decreed the suit after recording the evidence that the respondent-tenant was in default.

Aggrieved by the order respondent-tenant preferred revision before the respondent No. 1 u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which has been registered as Rent Control Revision No. 47 of 1984. The revision was allowed by the revisional court and the revisional court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-landlord.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri G.L. Tripathi has argued that revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is not open to the revisional court to reappraise the merit of the evidence recorded by the trial court and is perverse or illegal. In support of his contention, Shri Tripathi relied upon the case in Dalpat Singh and Ors. v. 1st Additional District Judge, Bifnor and another 1997 (29) ALR 429, and another decision in Rafat Ali Khan v. District Judge, Banda and others 1995 (26) ALR 527. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions and after perusal of the order of the revisional court, I am in full agreement with Shri Tripathi that the revisional court could not have interfered with the findings recorded by the trial court when the revisional court came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court are neither perverse nor based on no evidence. The material evidence has not been considered in the above three grounds framed by the revisional court and no findings was recorded. In this view of the matter, the order of the revisional court deserves to be set aside and is hereby quashed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose will be served to remand back the matter as observations have already been made by the revisional court recording arguments advanced by the tenant.

In this view of the matter, decree passed by the trial court is confirmed and the writ petition is allowed. The order of the revisional court (Annexure-4 to the petition) dated 30th April, 1993 is quashed. The decree passed by the trial court is confirmed.