JUDGMENT M.P. SINGH, J. 1. THIS is a plaintiff's revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the order dated 2-3-1987 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. 2. THE plaintiff's case was that he was the landlord of building no. 50, Ambedkar Marg, Ghaziabad. THE defendant was the tenant of one of the shops and the main building which was constructed in the year 1982-83. THE U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was not applicable. THE defendant did not pay the rent since 1-10-1985 hence after the service of the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act the suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent was filed. The suit was contested by the defendant-opposite party denying the rate of rent. The entire rent upto 30th September, 1985 was already paid. In addition to this a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was also paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as advance rent through cheque no. 57902 on 29-9-1982. If that amount is taken into consideration towards payments of rent, then nothing remains due against him. The shop in dispute was an old construction. U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was applicable. The jurisdiction of the court was also challenged. 3. TWO points were pressed before the Court below- (i) Whether U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was applicable? (ii) Whether the defendant has paid advance rent of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiff? If so, its effect. So far the first question is concerned, the court below has recorded a finding in favour of the applicant that U. P. Act XIII of 1972 is not applicable. This point is no more in dispute. 4. ON the second question the court below has recorded a finding that the defendant has deposited Rs. 10,000/- as advance rent with the plaintiff. After adjusting this amount, there was no default. With this finding the suit has been dismissed. Heard Sri M. D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nanhey Lal, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record. 5. THE only point which was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below has misconstrued paper no. 43/C which is the lease deed. He has placed reliance on paragraph 3 of the said lease deed which is being quoted below:- 6. ACCORDING to him this deposit of Rs. 5. THE only point which was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below has misconstrued paper no. 43/C which is the lease deed. He has placed reliance on paragraph 3 of the said lease deed which is being quoted below:- 6. ACCORDING to him this deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was not as advance rent but was as security money. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel. The primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a document or statute is to ascertain the intention. Moreover when the document itself is so clear that no two opinions are possible, then the court should take the meaning of the words as they have been used in the document. The court is to interpret the document so as to promote the object and purpose for which it has been written. On this point I get support from a decision of Supreme Court in the case of M/s .Girdhari Lal and Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur reported in AIR 1986 SC 1499 . The said lease deed has been held to be inadmissible for want of registration. Section 17 of the Registration Act deals with the documents of which registration is compulsory. Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act provides as under:- "17 (1) (d)-Leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent". Admittedly in the present case the lease was only for eleven months and the rent fixed was monthly. This document did not need any registration. The finding of the court below is against the provisions of law. The lease deed was admissible in evidence. 7. BESIDES the lease deed paper no. 43/C the court below has placed reliance on the statements of Hari Shanker PW 1 and Sudhir Nirvan DW 1 to reach the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by the defendant with the plaintiff as advance rent. I have looked into the evidence. The finding appears to be erroneous. This court could have recorded a finding that this amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by way of security and not as advance rent but while exercising powers under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court the Court has got its own limitations. I have looked into the evidence. The finding appears to be erroneous. This court could have recorded a finding that this amount of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by way of security and not as advance rent but while exercising powers under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court the Court has got its own limitations. In the case of Laxmi Kishore v. Har Prasad Shukla reported in 1979 AWC 746 a Division Bench of this Court has held:- "The Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 25 does not possess jurisdiction to determine issues of facts itself by entering into the evidence and assessing it. If it can not 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". 8. SECTION 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act provides as under:-25. "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 causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as it thinks fit". This provision confers supervisory and not an appellate power. The record can be called for seeing that the decree or order is in accordance with law or not. The court deciding a revision under this provision has to satisfy itself that the trial court's decree or order is in accordance with law. If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain the finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. The same will be the case where the finding is based only on inadmissible evidence. In such cases the court will be justified in deciding the question of fact itself because the evidence is of 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. 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 re-assess or re-appraise the evidence in order to determine an issue of fact for itself. 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 re-assess or re-appraise 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 to trial court. It cannot enter into the evidence, assess it and record its own findings. 9. IN the instant case since the finding on the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- has been arrived at on the basis of the oral evidence only, the case is being sent back again to the trial court to record its own finding. The following are the guidelines:- (i) The lease deed paper no. 43/C is admissible in evidence and needed no registration. (ii) Whether the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the defendant with the plaintiff was in the nature of security or advance rent. 10. THE revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. THE order date 2-8-1987 passed by VIII Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad is set aside. THE case is remanded to the trial court with a direction that it will decide the case on the basis of the given guidelines within a period of three months from date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Revision allowed.