JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The plaintiff is the landlord and had filed a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits before the Judge Small Causes Court stating therein that the defendant was the tenant of the disputed accommodation on a rent of Rs. 130 per month. The defendant did not pay the rent w.e.f. 1.6.1982. Accordingly, the plaintiff served a notice of demand and termination of tenancy on 22.2.1986. It was alleged that inspite of service of the aforesaid notice the defendant neither paid the rent nor vacated the house in question. Hence the suit,
2. The defendant disputed the rate of rent and submitted that the rate of rent was Rs. 41 per month instead of Rs. 130 per month. The defendant further alleged that he had paid the rent till January, 1986 and no rent was due w.e.f. 1.6.1982. Even though the rent was paid till January, 1986, the defendant on receipt of the notice remitted the rent from January, 1982 till 28.2.1986 by two Money Orders which was refused by the plaintiff. It has also come in evidence that the defendant deposited the entire rent along with interest on the first date of hearing. The defendant submitted that he had not committed any default and the notice sent by the landlord was invalid and the suit was liable to be dismissed.
3. The court below after framing various issues for determination dismissed the suit with cost holding that the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation was Rs. 41 per month. The court below further held that the defendant did not commit any default in the payment of rent and therefore, the notice of demand and determination of tenancy issued by the plaintiff was invalid.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the landlord filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887.
5. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the revisionist/ landlord and Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the tenant.
6. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the Court below has committed a manifest error of law in not considering the statement of P.W. 2, Jugal Kishore and has mis-appreciated the evidence on record and has therefore erred in arriving at a conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 41 per month instead of Rs. 130 per month. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that since the evidence on record had not been considered by the court below, the judgment of the trial court stands vitiated and the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the trial court for a fresh decision in view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla. 1991 ARC 545.
7. In the aforesaid decision this Court held that the Court deciding a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has to satisfy itself that the trial court decree or order is according to law. The Division Bench further held that if the revisional court finds that a particular finding of fact is vitiated by an error of law, it has a power to pass such order as the justice of the case requires, but in no case it has jurisdiction to re-assess and reappraise the evidence in order to determine an issue of fact for itself and the proper course is to remand the case to the trial court.
8. The counsel for the revisionist submitted that since the evidence of the plaintiff was not properly considered, the impugned order of the trial court was vitiated and the matter should be remanded back for a fresh decision.
9. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act provides for a revision against the order of the Court of Small Causes Court. Section 25 of the Act reads as under :
"25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.--The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of an aggrieved party made within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit:
Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this section shall vest in the High Court."
10. The phrase "according to law" has been explained by the Supreme Court in Hari Shanker v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, AIR 1963 SC 698 at 701, in which it was held as follows :
"The phrase "according to law" refer to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simplicitcr. It refers to the overall decision, which must be according to law which it would not be. If there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law."
11. Thus, the Court deciding a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act as to satisfy itself that the trial court decree or judgment was a decision according to law.
12. In the present case the trial court after considering the evidence on record has given a categorical finding that as per the extract of tax assessment of Municipal Board, Meerut one room was let out to the defendant at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. Further the trial court held that the defendant was initially given one room on the first floor at the rate of Rs. 16 per month and later on another room on the ground floor was let out to the defendant @ Rs. 25 per month and therefore the defendant was the tenant of the disputed accommodation @ Rs. 41 per month. This fact has not been controverted by the plaintiff/landlord. The trial court further held that the landlord did not issue any receipt of the rent received by him and in the absence of any receipt the evidence given from the side of the landlord was not satisfactory. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the revisionist that the evidence led on behalf of plaintiff has not been considered by the court below is incorrect.
13. In view of the aforesaid I hold that the decision of the trial court was according to law and is not vitiated by any error of law. Consequently, the revision is dismissed with costs.