The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of interference of a Revisional Court under Section 25 Act, 1887 and the limitations on reassessment of evidence by the Revisional Court.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondent though the case has been called in revised. In the circumstances, I proceed to hear the matter on merits.

2. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut setting aside Trial Court's judgment dated 22.03.2004 passed in SCC Suit No. 30 of 2001.

3. The eviction suit was instituted by respondent-landlord, Sumat Prasad Jain impleading petitioner, Gopal Kumar Singhal as defendant alleging that there is default in payment of rent and, therefore, defendant is liable for eviction. The suit was contested by defendant stating that he is not the tenant in shop in dispute and, therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between parties hence suit is not maintainable.

4. The Trial Court formulated five issues and issue No. 1 reads as under:

"1. Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties"

5. The aforesaid issue was decided by Trial Court, after assessing evidence, in favour of defendant-tenant holding that shop in dispute was in fact under the tenancy of defendant's wife, Smt. Rashmi Singhal, who was not made party in the suit and defendant, Gopal Kumar Singhal being not a tenant, the suit was not maintainable. Since issue No. 1 itself was decided in favour of defendant, which went to the root of the matter, the suit was dismissed without going into other issues.

6. However, this finding on issue No. 1 has been reversed by Revisional Court by re-examining and re-assessing the evidence as if it is sitting in appeal and despite the fact that there was no evidence to show that defendant himself was tenant in accommodation in question yet on conjectures and surmises it has held that Smt. Rashmi Singhal, being wife of defendant, for all practical reasons, the defendant is the tenant. In my view, approach of Revisional Court under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") is clearly erroneous inasmuch as under the revisional jurisdiction it could not have sit in appeal to re-assess the evidence and decide pure question of fact by re-examining the evidence.

7. 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.

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 ma