The main legal point established is that the revisional court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act cannot re-assess evidence and record its own findings of fact, but can only interfere on law points and if the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.

Mahendra Dayal, J.

This is tenants writ petition challenging the order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge/Judge Small Causes Court, Faizabad in SCC Revision No. 58 of 2010 whereby the revision filed by the opposite parties landlord was allowed and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, the suit was decreed with cost and the petitioner was directed to handover vacant possession of the disputed premises to the landlord within a period of two months.

2. I have heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shesh Verma learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 6 and also perused the record.

3. The dispute relates to a part of the building bearing Municipal No. 6/8/64 (Old No. 547) situate in Mohalla Subhash Nagar, Faizabad which belonged to one Keshav Raj Singh. After the death of Keshav Raj Singh, his son Gaya Prasad became the owner and the landlord. The original tenant in the disputed premises was Vishun Lal Kanaujia who was a Washerman and his parents had migrated to India during 1947 riots and they settled at Faizabad. Vishun Lal Kanaujia was married in Mohalla Mahajani Tola Faizabad but after sometime he took the premises in dispute on rent from Sri Keshav Raj Singh for doing work of washerman. The rent was being received by Keshav Raj Singh and thereafter by Gaya Prasad. Later on, Gaya Prasad transferred the property to the respondent no. 2 and his brother Mahendra Singh by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.10.1975. They were aware of the fact that Vishun Lal was running a laundary in the premises under tenancy Vishun Lal died in the year 1988 and thereafter the petitioners and the respondents no.3 to 6 became joint tenants. The respondent no. 2, on 26.12.1990, served a notice upon the petitioners determining their tenancy on the ground that they had changed the user of the buildings from residential to commercial. However, even after issuing notice, the respondent no. 2 continued to receive the rent. Thereafter the respondent no. 2 filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioners and the respondents no. 3 to 6 in the year 1992 on the basis of notice dated 26.12.1980. The suit was contested by filing written statement and denying the change of user. The learned trial court came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that the notice issued by the respondent no. 2 determining tenancy stood waived because he continued to accept the rent even after termination of tenancy. It was also concluded that the building was let out for business purposes and there was no change of user. With these findings the suit was dismissed.

4. The respondent no. 2 challenged the aforesaid judgment and order by filing revision before the District Judge. This revision was decided by re-appreciation of evidence and by reversing the findings of fact recorded by the trial court.

In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (20) LCD 1132. In this case, it has been held by this Court that the court while exercising power of revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act has no jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence and record its own finding. If it cannot proceed without finding on a particular issue, it should send the matter back after laying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into evidence and assess the same. The same view has been expressed in another decision reported in 2005 (23) LCD 1049.

5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, is not empowered to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings of fact. The revision can be heard and decided only on law points. If the revisional court comes to the conclusion that the findings are perverse or the same are based on no evidence, the revisional court ma