A.K. Yog, J.@mdashPremises No. 120/601, Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur of which Respondent No. 3 (Smt. Indu Dixit) is the owner/landlady, was let out to Sheo Pratap Singh, present petitioner, on rent at the rate of Rs. 7257 per month at present. Detailed facts are not being given in view of the fact that I propose to direct the Revisional Court to decide the matter afresh on the reasons given herein.
2. Suit No. 261 of 1991 was filed by the landlord for eviction, arrears of rent and dues before Judge Small Causes Court after serving notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. Copies of notice and plaint have been filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the Writ Petition. The landlord contended that tenant had made material alterations and changed the user by starting a school therein.
3. TenantDefendant filed written statement (Annexures 3 to Writ Petition) and stated that alleged additional constructions were with the consent and knowledge of the landlady.
4. The Court of Judge Small Causes by means of the judgment and order dated 17th February, 1998 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition) decreed the suit on the ground of material alternation.
5. Revision No, 52of 1998 was filed by Sheo Pratap Singh and the same has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27th August 1999 (Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition).
Petitioner has broadly raised following grounds:
(1) No specific finding has been recorded for diminishing value of building by raising alleged constructions.
(2) Value diminishing of property after alleged additional construction has been ignored, particularly statements of DW1 and DW 2.
(3) Plaintiff has not pleaded cause of action regarding material alterations in the plaint inasmuch as no time or date, when alleged material alteration has been caused, has been disclosed in the plaint.
(4) Constructions were made prior to the applicability of U.P. Act XIII of the 1972 and hence did not expose him to the penalty as a consequence of alleged material alterations under the Act.
(5) The alleged alterations, according to the tenant, raised rental value, resulting in settlement of higher rent, and duly accepted by the landlord.
(6) The landlord was at ''sufferance'' under the principle of ''waiver'' since he allowed ''alleged alterations'' and then settled and accepted higher rent; consequently he waived right of eviction against the tenant, even if he had one under law.
6. Respondent No. 3, Smt. Indu Dixit, since appeared by filing Caveat Application is represented by Shri Yashwant Verma, Advocate, and Shri S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate.
7. In view of the fact that petitioner and contesting respondent are duly represented, I propose to decide this petition finally at admission stage itself.
8. Contentions of the petitioner have already been noted above. Learned counsel Sri S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate, submitted that respondent No. 1/IXth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar was exercising power of revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Court Act and while passing'' judgment of affirmance'', he was not required to give elaborate judgment dealing each reasoning of the trial Court.
9. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 27th August, 1999 (Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition). Perusal of the judgment shows that Revisional Court affirmed the finding of the Court of Judge Small Causes, who referred to the arguments made by tenantrevisionist, referred to the decisions cited at the Bar and thereafter contended by observing''this has been considered by the Trial Court under particular issue and gave conclusions after detailed discussion and no illegality is being noticed in the decision''. Observations to this effect, do not reflect actual application of mind as it does show as to how the said Court reached to the ''conclusion'' because there is no mention of any particular material on record; process of thinking and consideration is wholly missing as it does not show why the case of either party did not find favour with him.
10. It is possible that the Revisional Court may have independently applied its mind and concurred with the conclusions/findings recorded by the Court of Judge Small Causes. But the Revisional Court ought to have, though in brief, given reference to the material/evidence on record, and addressed to the reasoning of the Trial Court so as to show its actual application of mind.
11. By mere ''observation'' that higher Court has considered the evidence on record and/or it found no error in the judgment of the Court below will not satisfy the requirement of law inasmuch as an observation can be made in a stereo type manner without consciously and actually applying its mind to the evidence and material on record or to the arguments raised on behalf of respective parties. Reference may be made to the following decisions:
AIR 1977 SC 413 (DB).
12. Reasons must be recorded for perusal of higher Court/Authority to appreciate actual process of appreciation and functioning of ''mind'' of inferior Court/Authority. There shall not be mere an apology for reason as held in AIR 1970 SC 678 (Paragraph 6, 7 and 8), AIR 1986 SC 2105 and AIR 1974 SC 87.
13. Notice of the Court has been drawn to the decision reported in Shiv Swamp Gupta v. Dr. Mohan Chandra Gupta, JT 1999 (5) SC 201. Observations of the Supreme Court in Paragraph 11 do support the view taken by me. Observation of the Supreme Court of the said judgment go to show that even Revisional Court judgment should be rendered in a manner which may avoid possibility of it being unreasonable, divorced of objectivity and further ensure that it does not betray reason and that it is in accordance with law.
14. In view of the above, I find substance in the contention of the petitioner that judgment of the Revisional Court cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside.
Writ Petition is allowed with direction to IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar Respondent No. 1 (or any other transferee Court) to decide Revision No. 54 of 1998 (Sheo Pratap Singh v. Ram Narain Pathaksince deceased through legal representative) as far as possible expeditiously and preferably within two months. It is made clear that Revisional Court shall decide the matter completely ignoring observations (if any relating to the merit of the case) made in the present judgment or that made in the present petition since the respondentlandlord had no opportunity to file counteraffidavit to rebut the same. Petition allowed.
