The revisional court's limited jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act prohibits it from re-appraising evidence and substituting its own findings on questions of fact.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 5. 3. 1999, whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by the revisional court and the suit for ejectment was decreed.

( 3 ) IT appears that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default and material alteration diminishing the value of the building in question. The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners, who filed their written statements controverting the facts stated in the plaint and pleading that they were not the defaulters nor they have made any material alteration which diminished the value of the building. It was also pleaded that they were entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), (for short the act ). Several other pleas were also taken to defend the suit.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as eight issues. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The trial court, after perusing the material on the record, recorded findings on material Issues in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 13. 5. 1997. Challenging the validity of the judgment and decree dated 13. 5. 1997, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a revision, before the Court below under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (for short hereinafter called the Small Cause Courts Act ). The revisional court reversed the findings recorded by the trial court in favour of the petitioner and allowed the revision by judgment and order dated 5. 3. 1999, Hence, the present petition.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently urged that the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the findings of fact recorded by the trial court, substituting its own findings for the same and allowing the revision. It was urged that the revisional court in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, had no jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and to record its own findings on the questions of fact, the judgment and order passed by the Court below were, therefore, liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Court below are quite legal and valid. It was urged that since, the findings recorded by the trial court were erroneous and illegal, the revisional court, in exercise of power under Section 25, had Jurisdiction to reverse the said findings, and to record Its own findings. According to him, the Court below rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in 1990 ARC 451. It was also urged that the writ petition has got no merits and the same was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record.

( 7 ) AS stated above, the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages was filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground of default and material alteration of the building diminishing its value. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed following issues :

(1) Whether there was default in payment of rent of disputed property and whether the defendants are entitled to get benefit under Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972? (2) Whether notice dated 19. 5. 1992, in which particulars of property were not given is legal? (3) Whether plaintiffs have constructed a Chatara on the terrace without the permission of landl