The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the binding nature of factual findings by quasi-judicial tribunals.

Anil Kumar, J. - Heard Srii Mohd. Shakeel, counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Luckbnow in SCC Revision No. 129 of 2008 Raju Sharma and others Vs. Krishna Kumar Jaiswal and others as well as judgment and decree dated 11.11.2008 (Annexure-2) passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow in SCC No. 184 of 2005 Krishna Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Raju Sharma and others are under challenge.

3. controversy in the present case relates to a shop under the tenancy of petitioner situated at building No. 260/84, Aishbag, Lucknow.

East : Shop No. 3

West : Shop No. 1

North : Road

South : Remaining Residential Portion of plaintiff's house.

4. In respect to the same, Sri Krishan Kumar Jaiswal/respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction and change of use, under the provisions of Small Cause Courts Act, 1987, registered as SCC Suit No. 184 of 2005 Krishna Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Raju Sharma and others in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Lucknow after exchange of the pleadings the issues were framed and issue No. 2 is to the effect that:-

"Kya wadi evam pratiwadi ke madhya makandar evam kireyadar ke sambandh sthapit hai?"

5. Further, after going through the material document on record and taking into consideration the statement of PW 1 Sri (Krishan Kumar Jaiswal) as well as DW 1 (Raju Sharma), the trial court had come to the conclusion that the relationship between the petitioner and Sri Krishan Kumar Jaiswal is of landlord and tenant. Accordingly, allowed SCC suit by means of judgment and decree dated 11.11.2008.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1987 registered as SCC revision No. 129 of 2008 Raju Sharma and others Vs. Krishan Kumar Jaiswal, dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2010 thereby affirming the order passed by the trial court/Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, hence the present writ petition has been filed thereby challenging the said orders.

7. Sri Mohd. Shakeel, counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the court below to the effect that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is totally incorrect and wrong and as the matter of fact the shop in question has been let out to the petitioner by Sri Jagdish Narain who is the father of Sri Krishna Kumar Jaiswal, as such there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between her and Sri Krishna Kumar Jaiswal who has filed the suit in question, so the orders passed by the court below are perverse in nature and contrary to the fats of the case liable to be set aside.

8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

9. So far as the sole argument which is advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned in this regard, the Judge, Small Causes Courts, Lucknow while deciding the issue No. 2 on the basis of material on record, specially taking into consideration the statement of Sri Krishan Kumar Jaiswal (PW 1) as well as Sri Raju Sharma (DW 1) had come to the conclusion the petitioner as well as Sri Jagdish Narain are the joint owner of the shop in question and there exists a relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and Sri Krishna Kumar Jaiswal.

10. Further in the instant case, the tenant/petitioner has although denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but he fails to establish the said plea by any cogent evidence rather the trial court/Judge Small Causes Court on the basis of evidences on record i.e. statement of P.W. 1(Krishna Kumar) and DW1( Raju Sharma) had given a finding of fact to the effect that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, subsequently, affirmed by revisional court, so keeping in view the said concurrent finding of facts as well as settled provisions of law that me