The Revisional Court should decide the revision on the basis of the material available on record and should not reappreciate the question of fact and record a different finding.

PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and pe rused the record. The petitioner instituted S. C. C. Suit No. 1 of 1989 against the contesting respondent No. 3, the tenant for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages etc. , on the pleas inter alia that the defendant tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent for the period 1st of April, 1986 to 1st of February, 1987. It was also pleaded that the tenant has carried out material alteration in the property in dispute, which has diminished its value and utility. The eviction of the tenant was sought on the statutory grounds of arrears of rent and substan tial damages to the building as envisaged under section 20 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. A notice dated 2nd of November, 1988 was given demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. The said notice was returned with en dorsement of refusal. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another notice dated 19th November, 1988. It also met the same fate. Hence, the suit was filed with the allegation that presently the shop in question can be let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 1, 000/ -. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations. It was stated that the defendant-tenant is not defaulter in payment of rent, the ar rears of rent has been deposited along with the other dues under section 20 (4) of the Act and the tenant has not diminished the value or utility of the shop in question. The further defence was that the arrears of rent was sent to the land lord before the second notice by pay order and money order which were refused. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

2. The Trial Court framed the points for determination and ultimately by the judgment and decree dated 14th October, 1997 decreed the suit with cost for recovery of arrears of rent, damages, taxes and eviction of the contesting re spondent. The mesne profit was awarded at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The said decree was carried in S. C. C. Revision No. 243 of 1997 by the defendant-tenant. The Court below by the impugned order dated 12. 1. 2000 has set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the said remand order the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court was not justified in passing the remand order and restoring the matter to the Trial Court. He submits that all the material is on the record and if some material was wrongly ignored by the Trial Court, it was open to the Revisional Court to have taken into consideration the said material on record. He further submits that the Revisional

Court is not justified in observing that there were two notices and both of them were returned with endorsement of refusal but the Trial Court has not recorded a specific finding with regard to the second notice dated 19th of November, 1988. The submission is that since the suit is based on the notice dated 19th of November, 1988 and the Trial Court was considering the suit on the basis of the said notice and has recorded a specific finding that there was refusal of the notice dated 19th of November, 1988, thus, the Trial Court has not omitted in considering the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the defendant tenant, on the other hand, submits that since it was found by the Revisional Court that the material piece of evidence was ignored by the Trial Court and the findings recorded by the Trial Court was not satisfactory, the Revisional Court has committed no wrong by remanding the matter to the Trial Court.

4. Considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court would show that the Trial Court has taken into considera tion the material which were placed before it. The Trial Court on the basis of the material recorded certain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document