Judgment:
Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by the Revisional Court under Section 25 of Small Cause Courts Act whereby the revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has disposed of the suit without looking into the evidence on the record whereas from the evidence on the record it is apparent that the defendant is in default of more than three years' rent and his tenancy has already been terminated by a valid notice. The revisional Court, therefore, allowed the revision and decreed the suit after reassessing the evidence on the record for eviction of the tenant and recovery of arrears of rent for three years and damages of Rs. 252/-.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before this Court that in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 (DB), and also other cases even assuming that revisional Court's finding regarding assessment of evidence is permissible under Section 25 it ought to have remanded back the matter to the trial Court instead of decreeing the suit itself.
3. Learned Counsel for the landlord has submitted that Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1981 ARC 545, Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, has been considered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case reported in 1988 (1) ARC 521, Karim Ullah v. III Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., wherein the Single Judge, after considering the case of Laxmi Kishore (supra), has held as under:-
'8. The basic case on which all these cases are based is the decision of this Court in Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545. It has been held in this case as under:-
'The Court deciding a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has to satisfy itself that the Trial Court's decree or order is accordingly to law. Of course, the Revisional Court should keep in mind the Court's dictum in Naicker's case (supra) that a wrong decision on fact is also a decision 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. No assessment is needed. The Court can also decide the revision if only a question of law or some preliminary point of law, viz. Validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision.
But, if it finds that a particular finding of fact is vitiated by an order 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 border to determine an issue of fact for itself. If it cannot dispose of the case adequately without a finding on a particular issue of fact, it should send the case back after lying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, assess it and determine an issue of fact.'
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, therefore, submitted that on the facts of the case the trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence with regard to the effect that payments that were made on 14th September 1990, 5th July 1995 and 1st July 1990 are the payments which were made after service of notice of termination of tenancy and there was default of 14 years' rent. Therefore, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that these deposits were not in accordance with law and it was legally erroneous for the trial Court to consider the deposits so made. The revisional Court, therefore, after considering the evidence on record, found that the trial Court had failed to consider material evidence on the record and revisional Court has power to set aside the findings of the trial Court in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Karim Ullah (supra).
5. To me it appears from the perusal of the order of the trial Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the trial Court has consider some such evidence which were legally not admissible. The evidence of deposits made by the tenant were already on the record, therefore, in my opinion in view of Karim Ullah's case (supra) the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit after considering the aforesaid evidence and arrived at a conclusion impact of those evidence. This, according to me, cannot be a case where it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial Court was not according to law and, therefore, the view of the revisional Court, that the trial Court has taken into consideration the deposits made as stated above, amounts to considering the impact of the deposits made. The revisional Court may be right as I am not expressing any view at this stage in taking the view that the trial Court should have looked into the impact of those deposits or impact of those deposits is in law that there is no deposit but considering the evidence of those deposits which were on record cannot bring the case of the landlord within the framework of the decision of Karim Ullah's case (supra). Thus in the fact and circumstances of the case I find, that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court i in the case of Laxmi Kishore (supra) and in the case of Karim Ullah (supra), so far as the facts of the present case is concerned do not lay down anything different than what has been laid down by the Division Bench in the Laxmi Kishore's case (supra). Thus in the facts and circumstances of the present case I find that the revisional Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit itself and it ought to have remanded back the matter to the trial Court following the dictum of law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Laxmi Kishore (supra).
6. In view of what has been stated above this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order of the revisional Court, so far as it direct the suit to be decreed, is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the revisional Court to be decided in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made in this judgment. Since the matter is fairly old the revisional Court is directed to decide the matter within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment.