IMPORTANT POINT
The Revisional Court's wide jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 allows it to decide the suit on merits if there is sufficient evidence on record, without the need for unnecessary remand.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the tenant, assailing an order of remand dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Mathura on a revision preferred by him, setting aside the decree for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent passed by the Trial Court against the tenant.

2. The tenant, though successful before the Court of revision in dislodging the decree of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent etc., says that all evidence was there on record, on the foot of which the Revisional Court ought to have finally determined the suit. Instead, he remanded the suit to the Trial Court. And, that is why the tenant has preferred the present revision.

3. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-landlords, waived opportunity to file a counter affidavit on 28.08.2023, whereupon this petition was admitted to hearing and heard forthwith. Judgment was reserved.

4. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant and Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents.

5. The plaintiff-respondents instituted SCC Suit No. 13 of 2015 against the tenant-petitioner [‘the tenant’ for short] with a case that the tenant is in occupation of premises, bearing Water Rate Nos. 1409/2-1409/2A (old) and No. 167/205 (new). The said premises are entered in the Municipal Assessment Record for the years 1987-93 with the Nagar Palika, Mathura as one situate at 2161/M, Bharatpur Gate, Mohalla Guru Nanak Nagar, Junction Road, Mathura. The former owner and landlord of the premises were Vinod Sharma, Pramod Sharma and Ashok Sharma, all sons of the late Jagannath Sharma and Smt. Anita Rishi and Komal Sharma, from whom the plaintiff-respondents purchased the demised premises, a shop, vide registered sale deed dated 02.05.2014 for their own need. The owner, prior to the plaintiffs' vendee, was Jagannath Sharma, who had purchased the demised premises from Smt. Chhakko Bai. The tenant occupied the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 220/- exclusive of tax. The demised premises was earlier a kachcha shop with a tiled roof constructed in the year 1982. In place of the kachcha shop, the then owner got a new shop constructed in the year 1986, which was assessed to house tax for the first time by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mathura in the year 1987. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) [‘the Act of 1972’ for short] do not apply to the demised shop. The defendant is in arrears of rent since the month of January, 1991 and he owed all this rent to the plaintiff-respondents' predecessor-in-title, the former landlord and owner. The plaintiff-respondents have acquired the right to recover all rent due in terms of the sale deed executed in their favour.

6. Relying upon the averments in O.S. No. 267 of 2014, Anil Kumar and Others vs. Vinod Sharma and Others, pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Mathura, a suit brought on wrong facts, the plaintiff-respondents, mistaking those facts, pleaded by the tenant as correct, caused a notice dated 08.07.2014 to be served upon the defendant through their Counsel. In the said notice, the terms of the tenancy were incorrectly mentioned to say that a plot of land was let out to the tenant by the former landlord. Upon acquisition of complete information, the plaintiff-respondents caused a notice dated 05.11.2014 to be served upon the tenant, mentioning that the previous notice be treated revoked, and further saying that the demised shop was constructed by the previous owner in the year 1986. By the said notice, the plaintiff-respondents demanded arrears of rent and determined the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

7. The notice was served upon the tenant, but was answered taking an incorrect stand. The rent due was not remitted nor the