The court emphasized that the Judge Small Causes Court should decide the suit afresh without being influenced by any findings recorded by the Revisional court.

( 1 ) THE landlord has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed by the Additional Distrjct Judge, Court No. 2, shahjahanpur by which SCC Revision No. 4 of 2006 has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Judge Small Causes Courts to decide it afresh.

( 2 ) SCC Suit No. 4 of 2000 had been filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute. One point that arose for consideration was whether the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were applicable to the building in dispute. The Judge Small Causes Courts held that the Act was applicable and the suit was dismissed. The tenant filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. The Revisional Court while deciding the first point for determination recorded a specific finding of fact that the Act was not applicable to the building in dispute. The second point for determination was whether the tenant was a defaulter of rent as a result of which he was liable for eviction. This point was also decided in favour of the landlord. However, after recording all these specific findings, the Revisional court remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the suit afresh in the light of the directions issued by it.

( 3 ) SRI Ramendra Asthana learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by means of the remand order, the Revisional Court had virtually decided the case and the remand order is nothing but an "eye wash" and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Piarey v. 1st Additional District Judge, Rampur and others, 1999 35 ALR 186.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the operative part of the order passed by the Revisional Court clearly shows that the Judge small Causes Court has to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

( 5 ) THIS Court in the case of Piarey (supra) made the following observations :

"by means of remand order, Revisional Court has virtually decided the case and remand order is nothing but an eye-wash as far as adjudication of rights of the respective parties in suit are concerned. I find that the contention of the petitioner is justified. " in the interest of justice, I direct that Judge Small Causes Court, rampur, shall decide JSCC Suit No. 13 of 1970 (Riyazuddin and another v. Piarey) afresh. The finding contained in the impugned judgment and order dated 19. 8. 1980 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Rampur in SCC revision No. 10 of 1980 (Riyazuddin and another v. Piarey) shall not be treated as binding on the Judge Small Causes Court, who shall adjudicate and record its findings on the basis of record before it without its discretion being fettered in any manner. "

( 6 ) IN the present case also as the Revisional Court has virtually decided both the points and the remand order is nothing but an eye wash. In such circumstances, the Judge Small Causes Courts shall decide SCC Suit No. 4 of 2000 without being influenced by any of the findings recorded by the Revisional court and shall adjudicate and record its finding on the basis of the record before it.

( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Since the suit is of the year 2000, it is expected that the Judge small Causes Court shall decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of the order is filed by either of the parties. Petition Partly Allowed.

.