Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur in SCC Revision No. 79 of 2000 whereby the judgment and order dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Small Cause Court, Shahjahanpur has been set aside.

Brief facts of the case are as follows;

2. A JSCC Suit No. 2 of 1990 was filed by the petitioner against Rakesh Kumar (who died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by the respondents) for arrears of rent and ejectment from the shop situated in Bazar Biriaganj, Opposite Town Hall Post Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur.

3. According to the plaint case, Ganga Sewak father of Rakesh was the tenant of the shop, he became Sadhu and surrendered his tenancy. Thereafter his son Rakesh Kumar took the shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 310/- per month and paid rent for the period from 1.1.1986 to 30.6.1986 against the rent receipts issued by the landlord. The counterfoils of the rent receipts were signed by him (Rakesh Kumar).

4. When Rakesh Kumar did not pay the rent from 1.7.1987, the petitioner gave notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the rent from 1.7.1986 to 31.10.1989 but Rakesh Kumar failed to comply with the notice. As a result, the suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectement. Rakesh Kumar contested the suit by filing his written statement, inter alia, pleaded that his father Ganga Sewak was the tenant of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 310/- per month, and he never surrendered his tenancy.

5. It was further pleaded by Rakesh Kumar that although his father became Sadhu and started staying in Mathura but sometimes he used to visit his house and in his absence he was running the shop and was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month to the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, Rakesh Kumar died and he was substituted by present respondents who also filed their written statement. The petitioner appeared himself in the witness box and also produced two witnesses namely Nilesh Kumar and Onkar to support the case of the plaintiff.

6. The trial Court after perusing the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record held that Ganga Sewak had surrendered his tenancy and thereafter Rakesh Kumar was inducted as tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 310/- but he failed to pay rent in spite of notice of demand and failed to vacate the premises.

7. The suit was decreed by judgment and order dated 24.11.2000. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24.11.2000, the respondents filed a SCC Revision No. 79 of 2000 against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2011 which was allowed by order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge Saharanpur. Hence, the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is based on complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter, and has not considered the material available on record in right perspective.

9. It was further submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court that Ganga Sagar became Sadhu and thereafter Rakesh Kumar was inducted as a tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 310/- was based on proper appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record. It was further submitted that Rakesh Kumar in his application filed under Section 30 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short “Act”) had claimed himself to be the tenant of the premises at rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month. The claim of the petitioner that rate of rent was Rs. 10/- was rejected and was held by the Court below that the rate of rent was Rs. 310/-. Since the said order was never challenged, it attained finality.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the powers of the revisional Court is limited and it is not open to the revisional Court to reappraise the finding of fact or record its own