Shafiq Ahmad vs Additional District And Sessions Judge ... on 13 December, 2002
33. The decision in Subhash Chandra Bharti (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has, thus, no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said decision laid down that the findings recorded by the trial court that the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable to the tenancy in question, could not be interfered with by the revisional court in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. It is true that normally the findings recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court on consideration of the evidence on record would not be interfered with in the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. However, if the said findings of fact are not in accordance with law, the same can be interfered with in the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. In the present case, as noted above, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court (respondent No. 2) without discussing the evidence on record and without considering the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act and Explanation I thereto, accepted the-version of the respondent No. 3 that the disputed accommodation had been constructed in the year 1976. Such approach of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court (respondent No. 2) was not in accordance with law, and the said finding recorded by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court was vitiated and could be interfered with by the revisions! court (respondent No. 3) in deciding the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The revisional court (respondent No. 1) was not correct in holding that the said findings recorded by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court (respondent No. 2) could not be challenged in revision.