JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the remand order passed in a revision under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 2. The opposite party No. 2 filed a suit against the petitioner in the court of Munsif Bahraich for recovery of arrears and ejectment from the accommodation. This suit was later on transferred to the court of Small Causes Bahraich. The case of the plaintiff opposite party No. 2 was that the petitioner was the owner of the property in question and he transferred the same in her favour through registered deed of sale and he also took the same property on rent from her by executing a registered rent note dated 11th November, 1971. Thereafter the petitioner committed default in payment of rent which gave right to the petitioner to claim ejectment from him. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds. The petitioner challenged even the title of opposite party No. 2. He pleaded that he had fallen into bad habits for which the plaintiff's husband Satya Narain was also responsible. It was stated that the companions of the bad company obtained his signatures on several papers and in this manner Satya Narain also obtained his signatures. It was his further case that the property in question was ancestral and he was not the karta of the family and therefore he was not entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 2. On this basis it was pleaded that opposite party No. 2 neither became the owner of the property nor she became the landlady. 4. While the suit was pending in the court of Munsif Bahraich in number of issues were framed. Thereafter by change of law the suit was transferred to the court of Small Causes. The learned Judge Small Causes did not frame fresh issues and proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the issues already framed by the learned Munsif. Issue No. 1 related to the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties and issue No. 6 related to occupation by the petitioner of the accommodation in dispute, Issue No. 7 related to the joint family status of the property and Shatrughan Lal being the karta of the said family. Issue No. 1 related to the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties and issue No. 6 related to occupation by the petitioner of the accommodation in dispute, Issue No. 7 related to the joint family status of the property and Shatrughan Lal being the karta of the said family. These three issues were taken up together by the learned Judge Small Causes and it was held by him that the property in question was ancestral and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to sell the property in favour of opposite party No. 2. In other words the learned Judge proceeded to decide the question of title in a suit based on the relationship of landlord and tenant. After recording the finding that the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of opposite party No. 2 was invalid and therefore no relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between the opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court the landlady opposite party No. 2 preferred revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act before the learned District Judge, Bahraich which came up for hearing before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bahraich. 5. The learned Additional District Judge Bahraich has rightly observed that in a suit for eviction based on the relationship of landlord and tenant the question of title could not be gone into and the trial court committed legal error in proceeding to pronounce on the validity of the sale deed. He has also rightly observed that only two material question arose for determination in the suit, one being whether the relationship of landlord and the tenant existed between the parties and whether these had been default in payment of rent by the petitioner to opposite party No. 2. It has been observed by the revisional court that since the trial court did not proceed to decide the case on correct premises the judgment of the trial court was liable to be set aside and the case deserved to be remanded for retrial. It is on this basis that the judgment of the trial court has been set aside by the revisional court and the case has been remanded to the trial court. 6. It is on this basis that the judgment of the trial court has been set aside by the revisional court and the case has been remanded to the trial court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was not open to the revisional court to interfere with findings of fact recorded by the trial court and therefore the judgment of the revisional court suffers from manifest legal errors. The preposition of law convanced by the learned Counsel is correct. The revisional court in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is not entitled to up set the findings of fact arrived at on appraisement of evidence. However, in the present case the revisional court has pointed out legal errors in the judgment of the trial court. The legal error in the judgment of the trial court, as pointed out by the revisional court is that although suit was based on the relationship of landlord and tenant question of title was gone into. The trial court proceeded to probe into that question and decided the plea of invalidity of the sale deed raised by the petitioner. This does not amount to interfering with the findings of fact. The interference is based on legal position. In my opinion therefore the remand order is perfectly justified and it does not suffer from any legal error. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the one hand the revisional court has required the trial court to re-decide the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and on the other has himself recorded the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant is established from the lease-deed dated 11th November, 1971 (paper No. Ga-75). That observation in my opinion is only a passing reference. In the latter portion of the judgment the trial court has clarified that in a situation like the one present in the instant case he could not record fresh findings and therefore the case had to be remanded to the trial court. The trial court will not be influenced by the observation contained in the judgment of the revisional court, and will record its own dependent finding. 8. In view of the above, the petition fails and in hereby dismissed with costs to opposite party No. 2. 9. The trial court will not be influenced by the observation contained in the judgment of the revisional court, and will record its own dependent finding. 8. In view of the above, the petition fails and in hereby dismissed with costs to opposite party No. 2. 9. It has been brought to my notice that the suit was filed in the year 1972. This litigation has already taken about fifteen years. The trial court shall accordingly proceed to decide the suit expeditiously.