JUDGMENT Rajesh Tandon, J. : Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arvind Vashishth, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present Civil Revision the applicant-revisionist has challenged the order dated 23 rd May 2003 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun at Mussoorie decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs Sardar Rajbir Singh Sethi and others. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiffs have filed Suit No. 17 of 2000 stating therein that premises No. 428, Ward No.4, situate at Mall Road, Library Area, Mussoorie consisting of ground floor and• 1st floor is in the tenancy of the Punjab arid Sindh Bank, namely defendant Nos. 1 & 2 now the present revisionists. It was stated by the plaintiffs/ respondents that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in dispute. The respondents have Claimed the rent from 01.08.1999 @ 3,757/- alongwith house tax and water tax @ 12.5% per annum. 4. The plaintiff-respondents have sent a notice on 17th July 2000 terminating the tenancy of the defendant-revisionist and after the expiry of period of 30 days when the accommodation was not vacated by the defendant-revisionist, the present suit has been filed claiming the amount of rent/damage from 01.08.1999 to 17.08.2000 @ Rs. 3,757/- total being Rs. 47,149.50/- as well as for future damages. 5. The defendant-revisionist has filed his written statement where it has been stated that the plaintiff-respondents have filed the application for enhancement of the rent which has been enhanced from Rs. 1900/- to Rs. 3,757/- per month. However, it was denied that any default has been committed by the defendant-revisionist. In paragraph-14 of the written statement, the defendant-revisionist has given factual position of the rent, the same is quoted. below: (a) Rent from 1.8.99 to 31.7.2000 Rs. 45,082/- @ Rs. 3757/. (b) Rent deposited from 1.8.99 to Rs. 20,900/ -30.6.2000 @ Rs. 1900/- under Sec. 30 of U.P Act 13 of 1972. (c) Balance : Rs. 24,184/(d) Scavenging Tax deposited on :Rs. 4,500/0 6.7.2000 on behalf of landlords. (e) Balance :Rs. 19,684/The defendant has alleged to have sent the following amounts: (i) Pay order No. 155816/57/2000 dated 19.7.2000 for Rs. 53711 - in the name of Sri Rajveer Singh Sethi. (ii) Pay order No. 155817/57/2000 dated 19.7.2000 for Rs. 53711 - in the name of Sri Amrit Pal Singh Sethi. 4,500/0 6.7.2000 on behalf of landlords. (e) Balance :Rs. 19,684/The defendant has alleged to have sent the following amounts: (i) Pay order No. 155816/57/2000 dated 19.7.2000 for Rs. 53711 - in the name of Sri Rajveer Singh Sethi. (ii) Pay order No. 155817/57/2000 dated 19.7.2000 for Rs. 53711 - in the name of Sri Amrit Pal Singh Sethi. (iii) Pay order No. 155818/57/2000 dated 19.7.2000 for Rs. 53711 - in the name of Sri Sanjeev Singh Sethi. (iv) Pay order No. 155819/57/2000 dated 19.7.2000 for Rs. 53711 - in the name of Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur Sethi." 6. However, it was stated that plaintiffs have illegally returned the said pay order and there is no default on the part of the defendant-revisionist. Defendant revisionist, therefore has deposited the amount in-proceedings under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972. 7. The present revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court has been filed by the defendant revisionist challenging t\1e order of the Judge Small Cause Court. The Revisional Court has recorded a finding that in view of Section 2 (1) (g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was enforced w.e.f. 26.09.1994, the rent of the building in question is more than Rs. 20001- per month; therefore, it is outside the purview of U.P. Act . No. 13 of 1972. 8. On the other hand Sri V.K. Kohli, learned counsel for the defendants-revisionist has argued that he being the tenant of the property since long back i.e. before the amendment, the provision of Section 2(1) (g) of Act No. 13 of 1972 will not apply in the present case. 9. Section 2(1) (g) as amended by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 w.e.f 26.09.1994 reads as under: (g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees; 10. After relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai 'Enterprises Ltd. Vs. M/s. Amrit Lal & Co. and anr. Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Champa Devi and another Vs. Rent Control and Eviction officer (1st) Allahabad and another reported 2002 (20) LCD 196 has held that amendment under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is prospective. M/s. Amrit Lal & Co. and anr. Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Champa Devi and another Vs. Rent Control and Eviction officer (1st) Allahabad and another reported 2002 (20) LCD 196 has held that amendment under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is prospective. The observations are quoted as under: "Following question of law, on reference by a learned Single Judge, is up for consideration before this Bench: Whether clause (g) to Section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) which has been inserted in the Principal Act by Section 2 of U.P. Act No.5 of 1995 will effect the proceedings pending on the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995? The learned Counsels appearing for the parties agree and submit that the question referred by the learned Single Judge has been conclusively answered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in M/s. Ambalal Sarabhal Enterprises Ltd. Vs. M/s. Amrit Lal & Co. and Anr., reported in 2001 SCFBRC 484, and in the light of this decision, the answer to the question has to be in negative. Accordingly, the answer to the question referred would be that clause (g) to Section 2 of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, inserted in the Act by Section 2 of U.P Act No.5 of 1995, will not affect the proceedings pending on the date of enforcement of U.P Act No.5 of 1995". 11. The suit has been filed in the year 2000 being Suit No. 17 of 2000, the provision of the amendment Act will apply to the proceedings of the present suit. 12. The Apex Court has held in Mahendra Pal Agarwal Vs. Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge and other reported in 2000(2) Allahabad Rent Cases, page 296 to the following effect: "The respondent -tenant moved an application on 1.12.89 before the prescribed Authority under Section 27 of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for restoration of amenity of toilet. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 14.1.94 allowed the said application and issued direction to the appellant-landlord to provide the facility of toilet to respondent tenant. The Prescribed Authority by an order dated 14.1.94 allowed the said application and issued direction to the appellant-landlord to provide the facility of toilet to respondent tenant. Aggrieved, the landlord preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, U.P. Amendment Act 5/95 came into force whereby the premises which were fetching rent above Rs. 2,000 were exempted from the provisions of the Act. However, the High Court without noticing the said fact dismissed the writ petition filed by the landlord. It is against the said judgment the landlord is in appeal before us." 13. In view of the. aforesaid findings, the provisions of amended Act being applicable to the present proceedings, Act No. 13 of 1972 has no application in the present case and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent being simpliciter for eviction is maintainable and it is not bound of the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The Small Cause Court has recorded the finding to the following effect : "I have gone through the decision cited before me and I am of the view that this decision does not help the defendant in any way. The question for consideration in the decision cited before me was as to whether Clause (g) to Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which has been inserted in the Principal Act by Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 will effect the "proceedings pending" on the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No.5 of 1995. In the instant case, I have already observed that the suit was filed after the amendment came into operation and the rent of the building was also enhanced, after the enforcement of the amendment. Therefore, there is no question as to whether the amendment will have the affect to the pending proceedings or not. It is, therefore, established that the Provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the instant case. Hence in view of this position the decision on Issue No. 1 is of no consequence. Both the Issues are decided accordingly. 14. It is, therefore, established that the Provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the instant case. Hence in view of this position the decision on Issue No. 1 is of no consequence. Both the Issues are decided accordingly. 14. Since the Act has no application to the building in dispute and the plaintiff-respondent has sent a notice U/S 106 of the Transfer of 'Property Act, the tenancy has been duly terminated, the plaintiff-respondents, therefore, are entitled for the decree of eviction simpliciter. 15. The present revision has been filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act. In view of the limited scope of section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, it is not possible to interfere the order passed by the Judge Small Cause Court Act. The jurisdiction under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act is very limited, as I have already taken the view in Jogendra Mittal Vs. Addl. D.J. Hardwar and others reported in 2003 (2) Allahabad Rent Case 589 as under: "Sri Kohali has referred the case of Laxmi Kishore and another V Har Prased Shukla reported in 1981 A.R.C. 545 where the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court after following the judgment of the Apex Court has recorded a finding that revisional Court has no jurisdiction to reassess or reappraise the evidence in order to determine the issues itself. The observations are quoted below: Considering the phrase 'according to law occurring the first proviso to Section 75(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the Supreme Court in Malini Ayyappa Naicker V. Seth Manghral Udhavdas Firm AIR 1969 SC 1344 observed that while exercising the power, the High Court is by and large bound by the findings of the fact reached by the District Court. If the legislature intended to confer power on it to re-examine both questions of law and fact, it would have conveyed its intention by appropriate words as has been done under various other statutes. A wrong decision on facts by a competent Court is also a decision according to law. The court has no power to be novo examine the findings of fact reached by the trial Court. To the same effect are several decisions of this court. A wrong decision on facts by a competent Court is also a decision according to law. The court has no power to be novo examine the findings of fact reached by the trial Court. To the same effect are several decisions of this court. In Ram Narain V Kanhaiya Lal Vishwakarma, 1965 ALJ 989, A Division Bench held that under Section 25, the Revisional Court is not empowered to look into the evidence of the case and to decide whether a finding of fact arrived at by the Court below is justified by the evidence on record or not. Several Single Judge decisions, 1977 AWC 545 and 1978 AWC (J) 78 are also of the same opinion. In the case Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohamad Mirasaheb Kadri and others, AIR 1987 SC 1782, the Apex Court has held as, under: This Court in the case of Bhai Chand Ratanshi V Laxmishankeer Bribhavan (AIR 1981 S 1690) observed that where Lower Courts applied their minds properly in deciding a matter under Section 13 (2) of the Bombay Rent Act, the High Court could not substituted its own finding for the one reached by the Courts below, on a reappraisal of evidence under Section 29 (2) of the Act as substituted by the Gujarat Act 18 of 1965. This Court reiterated that although the High Court had wider power than that which could be exercised under Section 115 of C.P.C. yet its revisional power could only be exercised for a limited purpose with a view to satisfying itself that the decision was according to law. The High Court could not substitute its own finding for the one reached by the Courts below on a reappraisal of evidence. " 16. In view of the aforesaid reasons, no interference can be made in the jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The revision lacs merit and is hereby dismissed. 17. Counsel for the defendant-revisionist has stated that he has already paid entire amount of rent in the proceedings under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 and, therefore, there should not be any default with the arrears of rent and the decree-holder has already received the same and there is no cause to pay the amount again. 18. The decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court is confirmed. The defendants-applicant shall pay the amount of Rs. 18. The decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court is confirmed. The defendants-applicant shall pay the amount of Rs. 3,757/- per month to the respondent till the defendant vacates the premises in question and hand over the possession to the plaintiff - respondents. 19. The defendant-revisionist has prayed that reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises. 20. Heard on the question of granting time. Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned counsel for the landlord-respondents has agreed that the defendant-revisionist may hand-over the possession to the plaintiff-respondents by 31st March 2005 provided the applicant gives an undertaking before the Judge Small Cause Court within a period of one month from today to the following effect : 1. The defendant-applicant shall hand over the vacant possession to the landlord by 31st of March 2005. 2. The defendant-applicant shall pay rent/damages of the each month to the respondent-landlord. 3. Defendant shall furnish the undertaking to vacate the premises within a period of one month, before the Judge Small Cause Court. 4. Defendant-applicant shall hand over the peaceful possession to the plaintiff on or before 31st March 2005 and shall not transfer the possession to anyone else. The revision is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.