The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Revisional Court has limited jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and cannot re-assess the evidence or substitute its own findings on questions of fact.

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.14 and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 31.01.2011, passed by the opposite party no.1.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (landlady) had filed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages against the opposite party no.14 and others on the ground that the said shop was taken on rent by Gauri Shanker in the name & Style of firm Gauri Shanker Shyam Behari. The opposite party no.14 being daughter's son was not entitled to inherit the tenancy rights but since he was alleging to be a partner of the firm Gauri Shanker Roop Narain, therefore, he has been arrayed as a party. It was alleged that the shop in dispute was not in the tenancy of any firm rather it was in a tenancy of Gauri Shanker in his individual capacity. The landlady was not residing at Faizabad as she was Lecturer in Jaipur. When she came to Faizabad, she came to know that the shop in dispute was partitioned, which has changed its nature and diminished its utility. The firm Shyam Behari Shiv Das and the firm M/s Gauri Shanker Roop Narain are sub-tenants, therefore, no notice was required to be served upon them. As per the rent deed dated 13.03.1946, the tenant was not given the right to sub-let the shop. The tenancy was terminated by notice dated 31.01.1981.

4. The suit was contested by the opposite party no.14 and admitted the petitioner to be the landlady and the rate of rent. It was alleged that Gauri Shanker and Shyam Behari were real brothers and Gauri Shanker was the Karta of joint Hindu family, and Shyam Behari was the member. On the death of Gauri Shanker, his three daughters and Roop Narain in whose favour Smt. Rampati executed a will on 09.01.2009 became tenants. Gauri Shanker was carrying business in the firm name and style Shyam Behari Shiv Das and they are carrying on their respective business since April, 1972. The suit was also contested by the defendant nos.1, 6, 7 and 9, who also admitted the petitioner to be landlady but they denied the fact of sub-letting. All the defendants have taken the plea that the shop was taken on rent by the firm Gauri Shanker Shyam Behari and Shiv Das was the partner. It was also alleged that the rent was paid by the firm.

5. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Judge, Small Cause Courts came to the conclusion that the original tenant had sub-let the said shop and there was no illegality in the notice and thereby the application was allowed by the judgment and order dated 01.10.2008.

6. The said judgment was challenged in Civil Revision No.144 of 2008 whereby the learned Revisional Court had found that the shop was given on rent to both Gauri Shanker and Shyam Behari, therefore, there was no sub-letting. Learned Revisional Court also came to the conclusion that Shiv Das was also partner in the said firm, but the original tenancy remained in the name of Gauri Shanker Shyam Behari. Learned Revisional Court also came to the conclusion that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the rent agreement and there was no sub-letting. Accordingly, the learned Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 01.10.2008 by the judgment and order dated 31.01.2011.

7. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to treat this writ petition under Article 227 in place of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Revisional Court exceeded in his powers as provided under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and the Revisional Court cannot reappraise the evidence. It has also been submitted that Section 3 (e) and 7 (f) of the Old Act also do not permit for inducting the partner and under new act also and in view of the provisions of Section