JUDGMENT : - A.K. Yog, J. Smt. Batasho Devi (petitioner) filed J. S. C. C. Suit No. 8 of 1979 against Mahabir Prasad (tenant), Respondent No. 3 in this petition, and claimed decree for eviction as well as arrears of rent etc. 2. AFTER parties led evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated February 28, 1980. Tenant-Respondent No. 3 filed Revision No. 84 of 1980 under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 3. THE Revisional Court in para 4 of the judgment observed. . . "but I cannot appreciate and understand a suit of the type and kind the instant one is on the Small Causes Court side. Hence in my opinion the present suit as framed was not at all maintainable in the eye of law on the Small Causes Court side. " 4. THE Revisional Court, however, further probe into the matter and after appreciating evidence it observed that Trial Court had mixed up the issues, it was not within the contemplated jurisdiction of the Court below to conclude and hold that Mahabir Prasad was tenant and give him benefit of deposits which were made by Ram Niwas in this suit. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that Revisional Court on its own looked into the evidence and thereafter disagreed with the conclusion recorded by the Trial Court and it further recorded its own finding, contrary to the finding recorded by the Trial Court. It may be at the very outset, observed that Revisional Court having come to the conclusion that suit was not triable by Judge, Small Causes Court, it should not have ventured to proceed further with the matter. The other findings recorded by the Revisional Court cannot be sustained on that score, if the said finding of the Revisional Court is to be accepted. How ever, the mere fact that someone disputed the relationship of tenancy was not enough to take away the jurisdiction of Judge, Small Ca uses Court which was to be determined on the basis of pleadings contained in the plaint. 5. THE Revisional Court, in view of its conclusion, should have remanded the case back to the trial Court for decision afresh in the light of observation contained in the Revisional order. Revisional Court having not done so it has acted illegally and committed manifest error apparent on the face of record. 6. 5. THE Revisional Court, in view of its conclusion, should have remanded the case back to the trial Court for decision afresh in the light of observation contained in the Revisional order. Revisional Court having not done so it has acted illegally and committed manifest error apparent on the face of record. 6. REVISIONAL Court has also committed manifest error apparent on the face of record in recording contrary finding of fact thereafter directing the suit to be dismissed while it could not do so in exercise of its power under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. In view of the above, impugned judgment and order dated 1st January, 1982 (Annexure 2 to Writ Petition) passed by Respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained. The judgment and order dated 1st January, 1982 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Mathura (Respondent No. 1) in Revision No. 84 of 1980 (Mahabir Prasad and another v. Smt. Batasho Devi) (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition) is set aside. 7. WRIT Petition stands allowed. However, Respondent No. 1 (3rd Additional District Judge, Mathura) is directed to decide the revision in accordance with law. Petition allowed.