JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, M. - This is a revision against the judgment dated 26.12.85 by which the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated 24.12.82. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also seen the relevant papers on the, file. 3. The facts of the case are that proceedings started under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act I of 1951. The revisionist filed objection that she is legally entitled to have a lease. She was married but her husband was not earning any thing, hence she returned to the village of her father and so the land was allotted to her. The father of the lease holder Smt. Rajendra Kumari is Chaukidar of the village concerned. 4. The trial court has not accepted the reasonings and arguments placed on behalf of the revisionist. Rather it has discarded the ration card on the ground that it was of a subsequent date and the trial court has not believed the theory that after the marriage she came back to the residence of her father and lived there, In the same way, the learned Additional Commissioner has not accepted the theory put forward by the revisionist. Apart from that it has been held that the lease-holder was of only 14 years of age when the lease was granted hence she cannot be said to be an agricultural landless a labourer entitled to get the lease in her favour. 5. The learned counsel of the revisionist has contended that the relevant facts on the file in favour of the revisionist has not been discussed or looked into these documents by the court below. Paper No. 7 and paper No. 8 have not been proved, hence there was no question of looking into, it by the court arises. Paper No. 6 is Ext. Ka 5. From this paper it appears that she lived in the village of her father since birth. This paper also not in any way support the theory of the revisionists because her case is that not since birth she is living in the village of her father but after marriage she came back to the village of her father. Ka 5. From this paper it appears that she lived in the village of her father since birth. This paper also not in any way support the theory of the revisionists because her case is that not since birth she is living in the village of her father but after marriage she came back to the village of her father. Apart from this it is a question of fact and both the courts below have held that she is not landless agricultural labourer entitled to get the lease in her favour and both the courts have given reasons for coming to this conclusion, it cannot be said that they have based their finding on presumption and surmises or no evidence. 6. Hence in my opinion, there is no ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. I therefore, dismiss the revision.