# Smt. Sabiya Begum Revisionist v. Dr. M. Hayat Ansari - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 902 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-03-04 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sabiya-begum-revisionist-v-dr-m-hayat-ansari-43701 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Section 25 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 (Distinction) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 Eviction suit - A landlord cannot seek eviction on a ground not pleaded or not available under the governing law. Where the premises were held not to be governed by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the statutory grounds of eviction under the said Act could not be invoked. Eviction on the ground of purchase of another accommodation by the tenant is not available under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 4 All. Smt. Sabiya Begum Vs Dr. M. Hayat Ansari 903 Scope of revisional jurisdiction- The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, cannot substitute its own conclusions on facts for those of the Small Cause Court, nor can it reassess evidence as if sitting in appeal. Interference is permissible only where the decision suffers from jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, perversity, misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or results in gross miscarriage of justice. Findings of fact by Small Cause Court- Where the Small Cause Court, upon due consideration of evidence, recorded findings that the alleged agreement of tenancy was not proved, the rent was ₹500 per month and not ₹4000 per month, there was no default in payment of rent and the alleged tenancy agreement was forged, such findings being findings of fact could not be interfered with in revision unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or resulting in miscarriage of justice. Meaning of "according to law".- Held, that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is supervisory in nature and not appellate. The expression "according to law" used in Section 25 refers to the legality of the decision as a whole and does not permit reappreciation or reassessment of evidence merely because another view on facts is possible. No re-appreciation of evidence- No such infirmity having been found in the judgment of the Small Cause Court, no interference was warranted. Revision dismissed - Judgment and decree of Small Cause Court affirmed - Interim order vacated. ## Text 902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 11. The petitioners, therefore, have a full right to contest their claim with regard to their entitlement of a free and fair compensation in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act keeping in view the ordinances and the notifications referred to herein above. It is open to the petitioners, therefore, to raise their plea with regard to any such claim which may be admissible and permissible under the aforesaid provisions before the competent authority or the Court where any such issue of enhancement of compensation or claim of fair compensation has been raised or is pending consideration in relation to the acquisition of the land of the petitioners. This issue, therefore, will have to be decided by the appropriate forum and the petitioners will have full right to raise this issue appropriately which the competent forum is obliged to decide in law. 12. Consequently, for all the aforesaid reasons we decline to interfere with the acquisition part of the land and we consequently vacate the interim order dated 18.7.2014 but at the same time we dispose of the writ petition without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to contest their claim with regard to the quantum of compensation and their right to claim a fair compensation before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and in view of observations made herein above. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Civil Revision No.- 45 Of 2009 Smt. Sabiya Begum ...Revisionist Versus Dr. M. Hayat Ansari ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Revisionist: P.K. Dubey, Dharam Pal Singh, Hari Bans Singh, S. Niranjan, Sharfuddin Ahmad, Yadevendra Dwivedi Counsel for the Opposite Party: S.M. Haider Zaidi Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Section 25 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 (Distinction) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 Eviction suit - A landlord cannot seek eviction on a ground not pleaded or not available under the governing law. Where the premises were held not to be governed by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the statutory grounds of eviction under the said Act could not be invoked. Eviction on the ground of purchase of another accommodation by the tenant is not available under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 4 All. Smt. Sabiya Begum Vs Dr. M. Hayat Ansari 903 Scope of revisional jurisdiction- The High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, cannot substitute its own conclusions on facts for those of the Small Cause Court, nor can it reassess evidence as if sitting in appeal. Interference is permissible only where the decision suffers from jurisdictional error, procedural illegality, perversity, misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or results in gross miscarriage of justice. Findings of fact by Small Cause Court- Where the Small Cause Court, upon due consideration of evidence, recorded findings that the alleged agreement of tenancy was not proved, the rent was ₹500 per month and not ₹4000 per month, there was no default in payment of rent and the alleged tenancy agreement was forged, such findings being findings of fact could not be interfered with in revision unless shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or resulting in miscarriage of justice. Meaning of "according to law".- Held, that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is supervisory in nature and not appellate. The expression "according to law" used in Section 25 refers to the legality of the decision as a whole and does not permit reappreciation or reassessment of evidence merely because another view on facts is possible. No re-appreciation of evidence- No such infirmity having been found in the judgment of the Small Cause Court, no interference was warranted. Revision dismissed - Judgment and decree of Small Cause Court affirmed - Interim order vacated. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. This Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1887") has arisen from judgment and order dated 04.11.2008 passed by Sri P.K. Jain, Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar dismissing Small Causes Suit No. 44 of 2005 instituted by revisionist-landlord for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect to disputed premises which is a shop. The shop was let out to defendant-respondent allegedly on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/- per month, but it is submitted that despite repeated demand, rent has not been paid since February' 2003. It is further submitted that property in dispute was let out to defendantrespondent for a period of eleven months only which expired on 04.02.2003 and since period of lease has not been extended, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted. 3. Court below formulated five issues as under: 1- क्या वािग्रस्ि संपवत्त पि उ०प्र० अगधनियम संख्या 13 सि् 1972 के प्राववधाि लागू होिे हैं, जैसा कक प्रनिवािी िे अमभकगथि ककया है? 2- क्या वािग्रस्ि िुकाि मकाि संख्या 88/384, हुमायूाँबाग, कािपुि िगि पाटि 'A' का भाग है, जैसा कक वादििी िे अमभकगथि ककया है अथवा यह िुकाि मकाि संख्या 88/384, हुमायूाँबाग, कािपुि िगि में जस्थि है, जैसा कक प्रनिवािी कहिा है, औि क्या मकाि िंबि के इस अंिि का 904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES वािग्रस्ि िुकाि की पहर्ाि पि कोई प्रभाव है अथवा िहीं? 3- क्या प्रनिवािी की ककिायेिािी दििांक 05-02-2002 से प्रािम्भ हुई औि इस बाबि पक्षकािों के मध्य कोई मलर्खि अिुबंध निष्पादिि हुआ औि वािग्रस्ि िुकाि का ककिाया ₹4000/- प्रनि माह िय हुआ, अथवा वववादिि िुकाि में प्रनिवािी वषि 500/- रुपये प्रनि माह की िि से ककिायेिाि आबाि र्ला आ िहा है? 4- क्या प्रनिवािी िे ककिाया अिायगी में कोई र्ूक की औि क्या उसकी ककिायेिािी िोदटस दििांक 17-03-2005 द्वािा समाप्ि की जा र्ुकी है? 5- वादििी ककस अिुिोष को पािे की अगधकारिणी है? "1. Whether the provisions of the UP Act 13 of 1972, as averred by the defendant, is applicable to the property in litigation? 2. Whether the shop in litigation is a part of house no 88/384, Humayun Baag, Kanpur Nagar, Part II as averred by the lady plaintiff, or the shop is situated in house no 88/384, Humayun Baag, Kanpur Nagar as averred by the defendant and whether this difference in the house numbered above put any effect on the identification of the disputed shop or not? 3. Whether tenancy of the defendant commenced since 5.2.2002 and any written contract in this regard was executed between the parties fixing the rent of the shop in litigation as Rs 4000/- per month or whether the defendant has been a tenant being in possession over the disputed shop since 1993 @ 500/- per month. 4. Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of the rent and whether his tenancy has been terminated vide notice dated 17.3.2005? 5. What relief the plaintiff is entitled to get?" (English Translation by Court) 4. While answering Issue 1, Court below has said that premises in question is not governed by provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") since the shop in question was constructed on and after 1991. Issue 2 has been answered observing that premises in question is identifiable. Coming to substantial Issue 3, Court below has found that alleged agreement was not proved though it was disputed by defendant and therefore onus lay upon plaintiff to prove the said document which has not been discharged. Further, plaintiff 3 also failed to prove any default in payment of rent, and, in fact, Court below found that monthly rent was only Rs. 500/- per month and not Rs. 4000/- per month and document allegedly executed on 05.02.2002 was a forged document. Issue 3 was answered accordingly. Issue 4 then has also been answered in favour of defendant holding that there was no default and in these facts and circumstances, suit has been dismissed. 4 All. Smt. Sabiya Begum Vs Dr. M. Hayat Ansari 905 5. Counsel for revisionist at this stage contended that respondent has purchased another premises and the premises in question is lying under lock, therefore respondent should be evicted therefrom and the shop be handed over to revisionist. 6. The submission, in my view, is thoroughly misconceived. Suit was not instituted on the ground that respondent has purchased any premises and should be evicted for that reason alone. No such ground is available under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882"). Admittedly this ground is available to a tenanted premises, if it is governed by Act, 1972, but in the case in hand Court below has clearly returned Issue No. 1 holding that Act, 1972 is not attracted to premises in question and, therefore, the ground of eviction available in Act, 1972 cannot be applied to premises in question. The eviction of defendant-respondent was sought on the ground of expiry of period of lease as also default and both have been answered by Court below against plaintiff-revisionist. Before this Court also, on these findings of fact recorded by Court below no argument has been advanced to show that judgment of Court below and findings recorded are not in accordance with law or not based on evidence or otherwise perverse etc. No interference, therefore, is called for. 7. Even otherwise, this aspect cannot be examined at all since there is no material at all to substantiate the same and the scope of revision under Section 25 of Act, 1887 is only whether the decree or order made by Small Cause Court was according to law or not. 4 Undoubtedly it is a supervisory power and not appellate power. The Revisional Court can call for record to see whether decree is according to law and, if not, it can pass such order with respect thereto as it may thinks fit. 8. The next question is, the ambit of the words "according to law" occurring in Section 25 of Act, 1887. 9. The Apex Court considered the same in Hari Shanker Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Choudhary, AIR 1963 SC 696 and held that it refers to the decision as a whole and not to be equated to error of law of or of fact simpliciter. It contemplates that entire decision, i.e., the overall decision must be according to law. There should be no miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. 10. Some of the instances where the Court can interfere under Section 25 are, (1) where the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter; (2) where a party had not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or that the burden of proof had been misplaced on wrong shoulders; (3) where the Court had based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted; (4) where there has not been a proper trial according to law; and (5) if on certain facts two views are possible, then a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 was not interfered. 11. The observations of Beaument, C.J. in Bell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Waman Ramraj, AIR 1938 Bombay 223 were referred and approved by Apex Court in Hari Shanker Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Choudhary, AIR 1963 SC 696. It further said: 906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES "the court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at." 12. In Malini Ayyappa Naicker Vs. Seth Manghraj Udhavdas Firm, AIR 1969 SC 1344 it was held that a wrong decision on facts by a competent court is also a decision according to law. The Court 5 has no power to de novo examine the findings of facts reached by Trial Court. 13. In Ram Narain Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Vishwakarma, 1965 ALJ 989 a Division Bench said that Revisional Court is not empowered under Section 25 to look into evidence of case and decide whether the finding of fact arrived at by court below is justified by evident on record or not. 14. The language of Section 25 is different than the Revisional Court powers conferred on civil court under Section 115 C.P.C. 15. Act, 1887 constitute Small Cause Courts of exclusive on preferential and limited jurisdiction. The class of suits not cognizable by small causes is listed in the schedule appended to Act, 1887. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code inapplicable to Small Cause Court are provided in Section 7 of C.P.C. By Section 40 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 certain provisions thereof, i.e., Sections 15, 32, 37, 38 and 39 have been applied to Small Cause Courts. Vide Section 7 the applicability of Sections 96, 112 and 115 C.P.C. is made inapplicable to Small Causes Court, meaning thereby its judgment is made non-appealable. The Trial in Small Cause Court is summary and its decision is final subject to revision under Section 25 only. It is in these circumstances, one has to make a distinction between power of Revisional Court under Section 25 and other appellate and revisional powers under C.P.C. or other provisions of procedural statutes. 16. The circumstances where Revisional Court to find out whether decision of Small Cause Court is in accordance with law may look into the facts without assessment have been explained in para 19 and 20 of judgment of Division Bench in Laxmi Kishore and another Vs. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 and it says: "19. If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. Same will be the case where the finding is based only on admissible 6 evidence. In such case, the court will be justified in deciding the question of fact itself, because the evidence is all one way. No assessment is needed. The court can also decide the revision if only a question of law or some preliminary point of law, viz. validity of notice, is sufficient for its decision. 20. But, if it finds that a particular finding of fact is vitiated by an error of law, it has power to pass such order, as the justice of the case requires; but it has no jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence in order to determine as issue of fact for itself. If it cannot dispose of the case adequately without a finding on a particular issue of fact, it 4 All. Smt. Sabiya Begum Vs Dr. M. Hayat Ansari 907 should send the case back after laying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, asses it and determine an issue of fact." 17. The bar is in effect with respect to reassessment of evidence and substitute its conclusion of fact but not where relevant evidence has not been considered or finding is based on inadmissible evidence or finding is without any evidence etc. In Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan Vs. Punjab National Bank, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675 the Apex Court reiterate that reassessment of evidence is not permissible to substitute its own inference but not where the decision is not in accordance with law. If the Revisional Court does not agree with finding, that by itself cannot be a ground since it is within the realm of assessment of evidence. This is what has been observed by Apex Court in Rafat Ali Vs. Sugni Bai and others, JT 1998(8) SC 157; Sri Raj Laxmi Dyeing Works Vs. Rangaswami, JT 1998(4) SC 46; Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., JT 1998 (7) SC 297; and, Ramdoss Vs. K. Thangavelu, JT 1999(10) SC 51. 18. Recently, the scope of Revisional Court has been considered by Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh 2014 (9) SCC 78 and while expressing its agreement with the view expressed in Sri Raja 7 Lakshmi Dyeing Works and Ors. Vs. Rangaswamy Chettiar (1980) 4 SCC 259 the Court said that power of Revisional Court under Rent Statute though is wider than the revisional power under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, but it is not wide enough to make the Revisional Court a second Court of First Appeal. It clarified that when the Court has to satisfy itself that the decision of Court below is according to law, in order to find out whether a finding of fact recorded by subordinate Court is according to law, it can see whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality or misreading of evidence or overlooking or ignoring the material evidence altogether or suffers from perversity or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice, but it does not empowers the Revisional Court to appreciate the evidence and take a different view as if sitting in appellate jurisdiction. In para 43 of judgment, the Court said as under: "43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional 8 jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as 908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity." 19. In view of above exposition of law, we do not find any procedural or otherwise error in the order impugned in this revision so as to warrant interference. 20. Dismissed. 21. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 22. Certify this order to the Lower Court immediately. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 18.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J. Application Under Section 24 C.P.C. No.- 47 Of 2016 Smt. Pratibha Gautam & Anr. ...Applicants Versus The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Shri Amar Nath Dubey, Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Amar Nath Dubey, Vivek Kumar Mishra PROCEEDINGS This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 521 of 2014 instituted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sitapur, to a court of competent jurisdiction at Lucknow. The applicants include the daughter (Applicant No. 1) and her father (Applicant No. 2). The suit was filed for cancellation of a marriage certificate allegedly issued fraudulently in favour of opposite party no. 2. The matter had already progressed to the stage of framing of issues and partial adjudication of preliminary issues before the trial court. PROCEDURE