JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - This writ petition, at the instance of the landlord is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur exercising revisional powers under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act. The revisional court has reversed the decree of the Judge Small Causes Court decreeing the suit of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner instituted a suit for the ejectment of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground of arrears of rent as well as sub-letting of the accommodation in the tenancy of the said respondents. The trial court recorded a finding that the monthly rent of the accommodation in dispute was Rs. 40/- that dispute notice of demand the respondents nos. 2 and 3 failed to pay up the arrears and, therefore, they have defaulted. It also recorded a finding that the respondents had sub-let the accommodation in dispute, while recording its findings on the two questions, the trial court relied upon some evidence which was produced before it. 3. In revision, at the instance of the tenants, the revisional court has, after reappraising the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the rent of the accommodation in dispute was in fact Rs. 12/- per month. By the same process, it came to the conclusion that the tenants did not sub-let the accommodation in dispute. 4. Before this Court the submission made on the forefront on behalf of the landlord is that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the findings of fact recorded by the trial court on both the issues after reappraising the evidence on record. Reliance is placed upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla and others, 1979 A.W.C. 746 p. 10. This Court has taken the view that in the exercise of powers under Section 25 of the provincial Small Causes Courts Act the powers of a revisional court are circumscribed in the matter of re-appraisement of evidence. This Court has taken the view that in the exercise of powers under Section 25 of the provincial Small Causes Courts Act the powers of a revisional court are circumscribed in the matter of re-appraisement of evidence. This Court has ruled that if a finding of the trial court is based on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence or the finding is on a pure question of law, it will be open to the revisional court to substitute its own judgment after reversing the judgment of the trial court However, this Court has clearly ruled that if the revisional court feels that on the reconsideration of the evidence on the record, led by both the parties, it should disagree with the findings recorded by the trial court, it cannot substitute its judgment but it can remand the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has urged that in the instant case the trial court ignored some material which had been placed before it by the tenants, and, therefore, the ratio of the decision in Laxmi Kishore's case ( supra ) will have no application. This submission is not sound. Assuming that the trial court considered the evidence led by the landlord alone and completely ignored the evidence led by the tenants, even then it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the trial court was not based on any evidence or material. Such will be a case of appreciation of evidence. This will, therefore, fail squarely in the rule laid down by this Court in Laxmi Kishore's case ( supra ). Learned counsel has cited two decisions in support of his contention. They are Sobha Ram v. Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, 1984 A.R.C. 340. This judgment has been given by a learned single Judge. It has been held that in a case where a trial court made out a new case which was not there in the pleadings and recorded a finding thereon it will be open to the revisional court to set aside that finding, appraise the evidence and record a finding of its own. This case is clearly distinguishable as the propositions laid down by this Court in Laxmi Kishore's case ( supra ) remain intact despite the decision in this case. This case is clearly distinguishable as the propositions laid down by this Court in Laxmi Kishore's case ( supra ) remain intact despite the decision in this case. Surely, it is not the case of the respondents tenants that the trial court made out a new case for the landlord while passing a decree. The next case is Om Prakash v. 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnore, 1984 ARC 58. In this case the controversy was with regard to the age of the building. A learned single Judge of this Court has taken the view that the particular question which fell for decision involved the determination of a jurisdictional fact. Accordingly, the learned Judge took the view that a revisional court was entitled to interfere with the findings of the trial court on a question affecting the jurisdiction of the court. This case stands on an entirely different footing and, therefore, there appears no apparent conflict in this case and the decision of this Court in Laxmi Kishore's case ( supra ). 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent next urged that the revisional court was justified in reappraising the evidence and recording its own findings in view of the judgment given by this Court in an earlier Civil Revision No. 711 of 1976 decided on 13th April, 1979. This revision had arisen against an order passed by the revisional court. The revisional court had dismissed the revision application of the tenants, the contesting respondents, in the present case. The matter was brought to this Court by them (the contesting respondents). This Court held that the revisional court had passed a perfunctory order and had taken a peculiar way of his own jurisdiction while exercising powers under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. This Court observed :- " Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the lower revisional court had jurisdiction to set aside the finding recorded by the trial court not only on the ground that the findings are perverse, but also on the ground that there is misreading of the evidence on record, that it has taken into consideration evidence which was inadmissible or which was non-existent on the record.,.." 7. Surely, the order of the revisional court does not disclose that it interfered with the finding of the trial court on any of the grounds as enumerated by this Court also observed: " It is undisputable that a revisional court exercising jurisdiction under section 25 of the aforesaid Act cannot set aside the find-dings of fact recorded by the trial court, on a mere reappraisal of evidence...." 8. Learned counsel, therefore, is not right in submitting that in view of this observations made by this Court in the aforementioned Revision, the revisional court acquired jurisdiction to substitute its own findings after reappraising the evidence on record. 9. In the result, this petition has to succeed. The matter has got to be sent back to the revisional court for giving a fresh decision in the revision after hearing the parties. 10. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 3rd May, 1980, passed by the District Judge, Shahjahanpur is quashed. He is directed to give a fresh decision in Civil Revision (J.S.C.C.) No. 13 of 1975 after hearing the parties on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.