The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of the Revisional Court's power under Section 25 of the Act, 1887, which is supervisory and not appellate. The Court emphasized that the Revisional Court can interfere if the decree or order made by Small Cause Court was not according to law, and its interference is limited to ensuring that the entire decision is according to law and does not lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. The respondent-landlord instituted Suit No. 302 of 1971 (subsequently registered as SCC Suit No. 135 of 1995) seeking ejectment of petitioners from premises in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit was dismissed by Trial Court observing in respect of Issues No. 1 and 2 that during pendency of suit rent deposited by petitioners-tenants having been accepted by landlord, it means that he has waived his quit notice and, therefore, decree of eviction cannot be passed. The suit having been dismissed by Trial Court, respondent-landlord preferred SCC Revision No. 24 of 2000 which has been allowed by Revisional Court vide judgment dated 15.10.2004 observing that mere fact that during pendency of suit rent has been accepted or received by landlord, it cannot be inferred or concluded that landlord has gives up his suit and waived his right to seek eviction of tenants. The Revisional Court placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Mohd. Ahmed Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun and others, 1995(2) ARC 12 and Roshan Islam Vs. District Judge, Bulandshahar and others, 1982(2) ARC 294.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners, however placed reliance on this Court's decisions in Laxmi Kishore and another Vs. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 and Kailash Chandra and another Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai and others, 1998(2) ARC 451 and contended that the findings of Trial Court cannot be reversed by Revisional Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") and, therefore, the judgment of Revisional Court is liable to be set aside.

4. However, I find no force in the submission and in my view, the power exercised by Revisional Court is well within its jurisdiction and authority.

5. The scope of interference of a Revisional Court under Section 25 Act, 1887 is whether the decree or order made by Small Cause Court was according to law or not. Undoubtedly it is a supervisory power and not appellate power. The Revisional Court can call for record to see whether decree is according to law and, if not, it can pass such order with respect thereto as it may thinks fit.

6. The next question is, the ambit of the words "according to law" occurring in Section 25 of Act, 1887.

7. The Apex Court considered the same in Hari Shanker Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Choudhary, AIR 1963 SC 696 and held that it refers to the decision as a whole and not to be equated to error of law of or of fact simpliciter. It contemplates that entire decision, i.e., the overall decision must be according to law. There should be no miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law.

8. Some of the instances where the Court can interfere under Section 25 are, (1) where the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter; (2) where a party had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or that the burden of proof had been misplaced on wrong shoulders; (3) where the Court had based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted; (4) where there has not been a proper trial according to law; and (5) if on certain facts two views are possible, then a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 was not interfered.

9. The observations of Beaument, C.J. in Bell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Waman Ramraj, AIR 1938 Bombay 223 were referred and approved by Apex Court in Hari Shanker (supra). It further said:

"the court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at."

10. In Malini Ayyappa Naicker Vs. Seth Manghraj Udhavdas Firm, AIR 1969 SC 1344 it was held that a wrong decision on facts by a competent court is also a decision according to law. The Court has no power to de novo examine the findings of facts reached by Trial Court.

11.