The Revisional Court has the power to interfere with findings of fact if convincing reasons are provided for a different conclusion.

TARUN AGARWALA, J. –

Heard Shri Siddhartha Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lok Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is the landlord and had filed the suit for eviction under section 20 (2) (c) and (d) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging therein that the tenant was not only in arrears of rent but also made material alterations in the building in question which has resulted in diminishing the value of the building. The tenant resisted the suit and contended that the building was let out not only for residential purposes but also for business purposes and that he had not made any material alterations and, that the constructions raised in the open space were only temporary in nature.

2. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, held that the building was let out only for residential purposes and that the tenant had made material alterations in the open space by making construction for keeping the fodder and water for the cattle and was illegally using it for dairy business. The Trial Court, consequently, held that the tenant was using the premises which was inconsistent with the usage of the property and that the alternations made by the tenant had diminished the value of the building. The Trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit. The tenant, being aggrieved, filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.

3. The Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Trial Court and further dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The Revisional Court held that the building was not only let out for residential purposes but was also let out for business purposes right from the very inception and that the structural alterations made in the open space did not diminish the value of the building and, consequently, allowed the revision and dismissed the suit. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court has filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard Shri Siddhartha Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lok Pal Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Court had transgressed its powers which were conferred under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The learned Counsel sub-mitted that the powers given under section 25 of the Act confers only a supervisory power and not an appellate power and that the Revisional Court was only required to see that the decree, if any, was according to law. The learned Counsel submitted that if the Revisional Court found that the decree was not according to law, it could have set aside the decree and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for a decision afresh but had no power or jurisdiction to re-assess or re-appraise the evidence which in the present case had been done. The learned Counsel accordingly' submitted that the order of the Revisional Court was patently erroneous and was liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla1 and also placed reliance upon another decision of the Allahabad High Court in Om Prakash and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others,2 wherein the Court held that the Revisional Court under section 25 of the Act had no power to examine de novo findings of fact reached by the Trial Court nor had any power to examine and scrutinize the evidence meticulously to decide whether finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below was justified by the evidence on record or not. The Court further held that the Revisional Court could only point out the legal error committed by the Trial Court by recording a finding of fact and the Revisional Court could rectify the defect and interfere in a finding of fact so permissible if it suffered from the defect