G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dt. 31. 3. 1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Sagar, in S. C. S. No. 136 of 1981, on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff landlord for recovery of rent. ( 2 ) THE two grounds on which the suit is dismissed are: (i) That the landlord has filed an eviction petition under proviso (h) to sub-sec (1) of S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), instead of under proviso (a) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge infers that there was no arrears of rent on the date of filing of the petition; and (ii) that the reason for dismissing the suit is that no notice was issued demanding arrears of rent before instituting the suit and in that view, he has dismissed the suit holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant no doubt submitted that these questions cannot be considered in a revision petition against the order of Civil judge. ( 4 ) UNDER S. 18 of the Karnataka small Cause Court Act, 1964, a revision lies to this Court. It reads: 'revision of decrees and orders of courts of Small Causes. The High court, for the purpose of satisfying itself, that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small cause is according to law, may call for the case and pass such orders with respect thereto, as it thinks fit. " ( 5 ) THUS, it is seen that the power of this Court, sitting in revision, under the above section is much wider than the restricted powers coferred on it under s. 115 C. P. C. The words used in S. 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts act, 1964, are to satisfy itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court ot Small Causes was according to law. It does not speak merely of jurisdictional error or material irregularity or illegality. It does not speak merely of jurisdictional error or material irregularity or illegality. Even if an order is passed without evidence or without proper application of mind, as could be revealed from the, material on record in that case, this Court can interfere in revision, because the decree would not be in accordance with law. ( 6 ) IN fact, interpreting a similar provision for revision, provided in Delhi and Ajmeer Rent (Control) Act (38 of 1952), the Supreme Court of India, in the case, Harishankar v. Rao Girdhan Lal (1) has observed in paras 7 and 8 of the Judgment thus: ( 7 ) THE distinction between an appeal and a revision is a real one. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as well as fact, unless the statute conierring the right of appeal limits the rehearing in some way as, we and. has been done in second appeals arising under the Code of Civil Procedure. The power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior Court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law. Under S. 115 of the civil P. C. the High Court's powers are limited to see, whether in a case decided, there has been an assumption of jurisdiction where none existed, or a refusal of jurisdiction where it did, or there has been material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of that jurisdiction. The right there, is confind to jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone. In other Acts, the power is not so limited, and the High court is enabled te call for the record of a case to satisfy itself that the decision therein is according to law and to pass such orders in relation to the case as it thinks fit. ( 8 ) THE phrase 'according to law' refers to the decision as a whole, and is not to be equated to error of law or of fact simpliciter. It refers, to the, overall deciaion, which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. The section is thus named) to confer larger powers than the power to correct error of jurisdiction to which S. 115 is limited. It refers, to the, overall deciaion, which must be according to law which it would not be, if there is a miscarriage of justice due to a mistake of law. The section is thus named) to confer larger powers than the power to correct error of jurisdiction to which S. 115 is limited. But it must not be overlooked that the section in spite of its apparent width of language where it confers a power on the High Court to pass such order as the High Court might think it,-is controlled by the opening words, where it says that the high Court may send for the record of the case to satisfy itself that the decision is 'according to law'. It stands to reason that if it was considered necessary that there should be a rehearing, a right of appeal would be a more appropriate remedy, but the act says that there is to be no further appeal. It may also be noted that after the Amendment of 1976, the, revisional power of the High Court under s. 115 CPC. is further limited by the amendment So, the power conferred under S. 18 of the Karnataka Small cause Courts Act, 1964, is much wider. It can look into the case as a whole to find out if there is an illegality committed or if the approach of the Court below to the facts of the case has been illegal and the High Court is at liberty to pass such order as it deems fit in such roses. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the scope of revision is very much limited as under S. 115 CPC. , in the case of revision instituted under S. 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts act. 1964.- ( 9 ) THE next question that I have to decide is whether the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in S. C. S. No. 36 of 1981 is in accordance with law. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rental. It is no doubt true that the landlord has also instituted an other petition lor eviction under proviso (h) and proviso (j) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rental. It is no doubt true that the landlord has also instituted an other petition lor eviction under proviso (h) and proviso (j) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. Simply because he has instituted the eviction petition under proviso (h) and proviso (j) to sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the Act, that does not mean that the tenant had cleared all the arrears of rent. It would be too hazardous to jump to such a conclusion. It is left to the landlord to institute the petition for eviction under what' ver grounds he thinks proper. That cannot lead to ar, adverse inference, simply because the, landlord has not instituted the petition under proviso (a) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. Hence), I am satisfied that the approach of the learned Civil Judge that the suit of the landlord, for recovery of arrears of rental should be dismissed, merely because he has not made a care under proviso (a) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act, is illegal. ( 10 ) THE evidence on record discloses that the landlord did demand arrears of rental. Ext. D. 4 :s the reply notice issued by the landlord to the notice issued to him by the tenant wherein he has clearly stated that if he (the tenant) does not vacate the suit premises after paying the arrears of rental, he would take steps for recovery of the rental in a court of law. That aspect is ignored by the learned Civil Judge. On the other hand, he has drawn an inference that since no notice demanding the rent was issued by the landlord before instituting the suit, in all probability the tenant was not in arreas of rental, if he had only read Ext. D-4, no could rot have arrived at that conclusion. Hence, his inference is not based on the evidence on record. and is illegal. ( 11 ) IN the normal course, when the tenant pleads satisfaction of arrears of rental, the burden of proving satisfaction is on him. The Act has come into force in the year 1961 and it makes provision for taking action against the landlord if ho does not issue receipt on receiving the rent. It makes it incumbent on the landlord to issue receipts for the rents received by him. The Act has come into force in the year 1961 and it makes provision for taking action against the landlord if ho does not issue receipt on receiving the rent. It makes it incumbent on the landlord to issue receipts for the rents received by him. If for three long years, the tenant went on paying the rents and the landlord did not issue receipts, it is normal to infer that the tenant either would have stopped payment to the landlord or the landlord did issue receipts. If the landlord did not issue receipts to him, he would have taken action against the landlord for not issuing receipts. In the circumstances, therefore, the mere plea of satisfaction, without more, of the tenant, on the facts of the, case, could not be upheld and believed. The learned Civil Judge has done so; it is highly illegal'. ( 12 ) MOREOVER, before instituting the application under proviso (a) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act, the landlord has to issue notice for two months demanding of the tenant the arrears of rental and the tenant is also entitled for relief. That being so, it is just probable that in order to be sure of his ground and in the anxiety to institute the petition for eviction the landlord might have resorted' to proviso (j) and proviso (h) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. That cannot lead 'to an adverse inference. In the circumstance the order of the learned Civil Judge is is not in accordance with law. Hence, it cannot be upheld. ( 13 ) IN the result, the Civil revision petition' is allowed. The order of the learned Civil Judge passed in S. C. No. 136 of 1. 981, on his file is hereby set aside and the small cause suit for rent is decreed as prayed for. In the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be ro order as to costs throughout. --- *** --- .