PREM KUMARI MEHROTRA Vs. XIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Thus is landlord's writ petition.

(2.) LANDLORD petitioner filed suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the tenant respondent No. 2 being SCC Suit No. 306 of 1984 on the file of JSCC Moradabad. The ejectment was sought on the ground of default and change of user. According to the plaint, the house in dispute, which was let out by the tenant for the residential purposes, was being used by the tenant for business purposes and welding machine had been installed in the house in dispute by the tenant. The suit was filed after serving the notice of termination of tenancy. The trial Court held the notice to be served however the suit was not decreed by the trial Court on the ground of default as the tenant before first date of hearing had deposited the entire amount of rent etc. in compliance of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The trial Court decreed the suit only on the ground of inconsistent user. The trial Court recorded the finding of fact that the tenant had installed the welding machine in the premises in dispute. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on 24-4-1989 and permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The tenant respondent filed a revision against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court under Section 25 of PSCC Act, registered as Revision No. 74 of 1989. Revisional Court after reassessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that it had not been proved by the landlord that any welding machine was installed in the house in dispute. The Revisional Court also held that service of notice through refusal was not proved by the landlord. Ultimately XIII, Additional District Judge, Moradabad allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 30-11-1990 and dismissed the suit for ejectment. The writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order of Revisional Court.

(3.) IN my opinion even if the findings recorded by the trial Court are erroneous in law the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to allow the revision out rightly after reassessment of the evidence. The only option left for the Revisional Court in exercise of power under Section 25 of PSCC Act was to remand the matter to the trial Court as held in 1979 AWC 746.