TARA CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants' revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order and decree of the Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, setting aside the judgment of the trial court and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant.

(2.) SHYAM Lal, plaintilf opposite party, filed a suit for ejectment against Tara Chand and Jai Prakash Gupta, defendant-applicants, on the ground of sub-letting. The plaintiff opposite party asserted that he had purchased the house in question in 1957. Tara Chand was its tenant, but in December, 1970, he sublet the disputed premises to Jai Prakash Gupta, defendant applicant No. 2. The defendants contested the suit and denied sub-letting, Tara Chand asserted that he was an old man without wife or children and Jai Prakash, defendant No. 2, was his sisters son who has been living with him ever since 1946, and carrying on business with him in the shop in question. He further asserted that Jai Prakash Gupta was carrying on business in this shop even at the time of purchase of the shop by the plaintiff opposite party. The trial court on appraisal of evidence produced by the parties accepted the defendants casj and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that Jai Prakash Gupta was not a sub-tenant of Tara Chand, instead Tara Chand continued to be tenant. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a revision under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act before the District Judge. The revi­sion was allowed by the Additional District Judge on the finding that Jai Prakash Gupta was sub-tenant and Tara Chand had ceased to occupy the shop in question.

(3.) IT is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, it is not open to the court to re-assess evidence or to discard the testimony of witnesses which may have been found trustworthy by the trial court. It is not open to the court to interfere with the inference drawn by the trial court. The Court has limited jurisdiction to review the judgment and ascertain as to whether any miscarriage of justice has been caused to the parties. In considering that question it is not open to the court to review the findings of fact recorded by the trial court even if two views may be possible on the appreciation of evidence. In Malint Ayyappa Naicker v. Seth Manghraj (A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1344), the Supreme Court while considering the scope of the first proviso to section 75 (1) of the provincial Insolvency Act which in pari materia with section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, observed that the legislature did not confer power on the court to examine both questions of law and fact while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to section 75 of the Provincial Insol­vency Act. While giving illustration as to what decision would not be accor­ding to law, the Supreme Court observed that if the court has based its deci­sion on inadmissible evidence or where the unsuccessful party has not been given proper opportunity to meet the case and burden has been placed on wrong shoulders, the judgment will not be in accordance with law. But if no such errors are committed by the trial court, it is not open to the revisional court while exercising jurisdiction under section 25 or to interfere with the findings of the trial court on a question of fact on re-appreciation of evidence.