Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is landlord’s writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 329 of 1979 filed by original landlady petitioner since deceased and survived by legal representatives against Bengali Maltenant respondent No. 2 before J.S.C.C, Agra. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Shanti Market Belanganj, Agra, rent of which is Rs. 40/- per month. Suit was filed after termination of tenancy through notice, which was served upon the defendant on 10.2.1979. Receipt of notice was admitted by the defendant. It was further pleaded by landlord that ten years’ period since construction of the shop in dispute had not expired till the filing of the suit, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable by virtue of its Section-2(2), J.S.C.C., Agra decreed the suit through order dated 16.7.1986 holding that the Act was not applicable and tenancy has been terminated through notice. (In order to prove the notice, carbon copy of the notice (which was typed) was filed and husband of the landlady proved that it was true copy of the original sent to the tenant). Against the said judgment and decree, tenant filed Civil Revision No. 19 of 1986, which was dismissed on 8.1.1988.

3. Before the Revisional Court, tenant filed review petition, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 7 of 1988. Even though the Presiding Officer, who decided the revision, was available at Agra still review petition was sent to another Presiding Officer, i.e. Presiding Officer of the Court of Vlth A.D.J.

4. Vlth A.D.J., Agra allowed the review petition through order dated 6.4.1989 set aside the order dated 8.1.1988 through which revision was dismissed. Through order dated 6.4.1989 revision was allowed, judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and matter was remanded to the trial Court. This writ petition is directed against order dated 6.4.1989.

5. Revision was initially dismissed by Sri D. Chandra and subsequently, it was allowed on review by Sri N.L. Saxena.

6. The tenant in his written statement had admitted receipt of the notice but had asserted that it was invalid. Para-4 of the written statement is quoted below :

“that in Para-4 of the plaint, only it is admitted that plaintiff served the defendant with a wrong and illegal notice for which a correct reply was sent. Rest of the allegations are wrong and not admitted.”

7. The revisional Court while dismissing the revision clearly mentioned that "no objection was taken by the revisionist at the time of the recording the evidence."

8. Revisional Court while allowing the revision on review held that copy of the notice filed by the landlord was secondary evidence and it was not proved in accordance with Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Landlady’s husband had stated that he and his wife got prepared the notice by the Advocate and on the original notice as well as on its copy, the Advocate signed and Paper No. 39-Ga was copy of the notice and on this copy also the Advocate signed in his presence. Thereafter, it is mentioned that in the statement the witness proved the notice. The said statement is quoted in the judgment of Vlth A.D.J. dated 6.4.1989 passed on review petition. It is extremely strange rather baffling that even after recording the evidence of landlady’s husband in verbatim, the Vlth A.D.J. held that copy of the notice was not proved. Section 63, Evidence Act requires that it must be proved that secondary evidence was copy of the original and copy means a copy made from the original by mechanical process or copy made from or compare with the original or oral accounts of the content of a document given by same person, who is himself sent it. The oral statement of landlady’s husband was hundred per cent sufficient to prove that copy was the correct copy of the original. The revisional Court while allowing the review petition observed that witness should have stated that it was prepared by t