ORDER N.D. Ojha, J. - A suit was instituted by respondents 3, 4, 5 and one Sri Raj Kumar against Ghanshyam Dass predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 for ejectment from a house and for recovery of arrears of rent etc. on the ground that Ghanshyam Dass, who was the tenant of the said house on behalf of the plaintiffs, was a defaulter in payment of rent, be not having cleared the arrears of rent for a period of more than three months notwithstanding a notice of demand having been served on him. Raj Kumar one of the plaintiffs died during the pendency of the litigation leaving respondents 3 to 8 as his legal representatives of whom respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were already on the record and 5 to 8 were substituted. Likewise Ghanshyam Dass also died during the pendency of the litigation leaving the petitioners and respondents 9 to 12 as his legal representatives. The suit was contested by Ghanshyam Dass inter alia on the ground that the rate of rent was Rs. 12/- p m. only and not Rs. 15/- p.m. as claimed by the plaintiffs and that on the receipt of the notice of demand the arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs. 12/- p.m. were remitted by money-order which the landlord refused and consequently he was not a defaulter in payment of rent. 2. The Judge, Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad, respondent No. 2, held that the rate of rent was Rs. 12/- p.m. as pleaded by the tenant and not Rs. 15/- p.m. as pleaded by the landlords and since on the receipt of the notice of demand the arrears of rent calculated at the rate of Rs. 12/- p.m. were remitted by money order and refused by the landlords, the tenant could not be said to be a defaulter in payment of rent. On this finding the suit for ejectment was dismissed. In regard to the arrears of rent, it was held that since the arrears of rent had been deposited in the court, the landlord could withdraw the same. Aggrieved by that order respondents 3 to 8 preferred a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the District Judge, Meerut. This revision came up for hearing before the Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut, respondent No. 1, and was allowed on 17-3-79. Aggrieved by that order respondents 3 to 8 preferred a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the District Judge, Meerut. This revision came up for hearing before the Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut, respondent No. 1, and was allowed on 17-3-79. It is this order of respondent No. 1 which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition. 3. It was urged that the finding in regard to the rate of rent as recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court, was a finding of fact and respondent No. 1 did not have the jurisdiction to reverse that finding on reappraisal of evidence and to record his own finding that the rate of rent was Rs. 15/- p.m. and not Rs. 12/- p.m. For the landlords on the other hand it has been urged that on the very face of it the finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court was erroneous in law and it was open to respondent No 1 to set aside that finding even in exercise of the powers, conferred on him under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court's Act. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the submission made by counsel for the respondents that the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court, suffers from manifest error of law, is well founded. In support of their case that the rate of rent was Rs. 15/- p.m. and not Rs. 12/- p.m., the landlord respondents had placed reliance on several counterfoils of receipts for payment of rent bearing the signature of the tenant Ghanshyam Dass which indicated that the rate of rent was Rs. 15/- p.m. The landlord respondent further relied on the notice dated 17-5-69 admittedly served on Ganshyam Dass on 20-5-69 and the reply given to that notice on behalf of Ghansbyam Dass on 21-5-69 copies whereof have been attached with the supplementary counter affidavit filed in this writ petition as annexures 1' and 2' respectively. Even though in the opening part of the notice dated 17-5-69 it had been specifically stated by the landlord that the rate of rent was Rs. 15/- p in. in his reply given to that notice on 21-5 69 Ghanshyam Dass did not controvert the allegations made by the landlords in their notice in regard to the rate of rent being Rs. 15/- p in. in his reply given to that notice on 21-5 69 Ghanshyam Dass did not controvert the allegations made by the landlords in their notice in regard to the rate of rent being Rs. 15/- p.m., nor it was asserted that the rate of rent was Rs. 12/- p.m. only. The Judge, Small Cause Court, has not taken into consideration the effect of the rate of rent mentioned in the notice dated 17-5-69 not being denied by Ghanshyam Dass in his reply dated 21-5-69. This was a material piece of evidence. A finding of fact arrived at by ignoring material piece of evidence suffers from a manifest error of law, as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Nanha and another v. D.D.C. (1975 A.W.C. 1). There is one more circumstance which was not noticed by the Judge, Small Cause Court. The very affidavit of Ghanshyam Dass, which has been relied on by the Judge, Small Cause Court, for brushing aside the counterfoils showing the rate of rent to be Rs. 15/- p.m. if read properly, gives rise to an inference that Ghanshyam Dass really admitted that the counter-foils indicating that the rent was Rs. 15/- p m. did bear his signature. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit it has been stated that the rent was being realised at the rate of Rs. 12/- p.m. but the receipts were given at the rate of Rs. 15/- p.m. The counter-foils which were relied on by the landlords were in respect of these very receipts and bore the signature of Ghanshyam Dass. This circumstance also has apparently escaped the attention of the Judge, Small Cause Court. For these reasons the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court in regard to the rate of rent was clearly vitiated in law and it was within the competence of the Additional District Judge, Meerut, respondent No. 1, to have set aside that finding. 5. The crucial question which, however, falls for consideration is in regard to the scope of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 in a situation such as in the instant case. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1979 A.W.C. 746. laid down the scope of power under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as follows : "19. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1979 A.W.C. 746. laid down the scope of power under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as follows : "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 on inadmissible evidence. In such cases, 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 an issue of fact for itself. If it cannot dispose of the case adequately without a finding on a particular issue of fact, it should send the case back after laying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, assess it and determine an issue of fact." 6. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that none of the ingredients mentioned above in paragraph 19 of the report are to be found in the instant case. Consequently it was not open to the Additional District Judge to have recorded his own finding on the question of fact in regard to the rate of rent. The only course open to him, after having come to the conclusion that the finding of fact in regard to the rate of rent recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court, was vitiated by an error of law, was as held in paragraph 20 aforesaid, to remit the case back to the Judge, Small Cause Court, for recording a fresh finding on that question. For this reason the order of respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed. Since, as seen above the finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court, in regard to the rate of rent suffers from a manifest error of law, even his order deserves to be quashed. 7. For this reason the order of respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed. Since, as seen above the finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court, in regard to the rate of rent suffers from a manifest error of law, even his order deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 13-8-76 and 17-3-79 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad, and Vth Additional District Judge, Meerut, respectively are quashed and the Judge, Small Cause Court, is directed to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above. Since the suit was instituted in the year 1976, about five years back, the Judge, Small Cause Court, will decide it expeditiously preferably within three months of the filing of a certified copy of this order by any of the parties to the suit. 8. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.