JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Matter is taken up in the revised list. 2. None appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent. 3. Heard Shri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. 4. The controversy involved in the present case relates to premises measuring about 4964.19 sq. ft. and consisting of Basement, Ground Floor and Mezzanine Floor of the Building No.177/44 Kha, Dr. B. N. Verma Road, Aminabad, Lucknow and bounded as under was in tenancy of the defendant Bank and the plaintiffs are the landlord of the same :- East Rasta West Dr. B. N. Verma Road North Rasta and House of Dr. M. K. Sharma & Major V. K. Khare South House of Mrs. Rohira 5. The said premises has been let out to the defendant-Syndicate Bank by virtue of an agreement @ Rs.29,677=14 per month. Subsequently, as per version of the plaintiffs/revisionists, the bank has not paid the rent of the premises w.e.f. 1.10.2000 and as the negotiations for the enhancement of the rent failed between the parties, so a notice dated 27.03.2001 through their counsel has been issued by the plaintiffs/revisionsits terminating the tenancy of the defendant-Bank, served to which reply has been given on 30.04.2001. 6. In spite of the expiry of the notice period, defendant-Bank has failed to vacate the premises and pay the arrears of rent and damages, hence, the defendant-Bank has left itself liable to ejectment from the premises and recovery of rent and damages as claimed in the notice. So a suit for the said purpose has been filed under the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 claimed the relief for ejectment and also the following relief :- (i) Rent from 1.10.2000 to 31.3.2001 @ Rs. 29677 = 14 per month Rs. 1,78,062=84 (ii) Rent from 1.4.2001 to 31.5.2001 @ Rs. 29677 = 14 per month Rs. 59,354=28 (iii) Damages for use and occupation from 1.6.2001 to 4.3.2003 @ 6000/- per day (638 days) Rs. 38,46,000=00 Total Rs. 40,83,417=12 7. Thereafter, a suit filed by the plaintiffs/Smt. Kaushalya Wanti (now deceased) registered as S.C.C. No.9 of 2003 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ayodhya Prakran, Lucknow. 8. 29677 = 14 per month Rs. 59,354=28 (iii) Damages for use and occupation from 1.6.2001 to 4.3.2003 @ 6000/- per day (638 days) Rs. 38,46,000=00 Total Rs. 40,83,417=12 7. Thereafter, a suit filed by the plaintiffs/Smt. Kaushalya Wanti (now deceased) registered as S.C.C. No.9 of 2003 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ayodhya Prakran, Lucknow. 8. In the said suit, as no statement has been filed within the stating period as per the provisions as provided under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. So, an application by the plaintiff has been moved (17-C) and the objection filed by the defendant (19-C). By an order dated 14.01.2004 passed in S.C.C. Suit No.9 of 2003, application no.17-C has been allowed and objection 19-C has been rejected. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, Syndicate Bank approached this Court by filing S.C.C. Revision No.21 of 2004, allowed by means of order dated 30.08.2005, the relevant portion quoted herein below : - "In view of the above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.01.2004 passed in S.C.C. Suit No.9 of 2003 is quashed. The trial court is directed to decide the pending applications for taking the written statement of the defendant on record afresh in view of the aforesaid law. The defendant-revisionist is granted liberty to move afresh application setting forth the ground for extending of time within a period of two weeks." 10. Accordingly, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant. 11. Thereafter, an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 read with Seciton 151C.P.C. has been moved by the plaintiffs, allowed and necessary amendment has been made in the plaint. 12. On 19.07.2007, Smt. Kaushlyawani Devi/plaintifff no.1 has died, as such, she has been substituted by legal representative, namely, Saatish Chandra Sachdeva as palintiff no.1/1. 13. During the pendency of the present matter, on behalf of the Bank, an application has been moved that the Bank has vacated the premises in question 28.02.2006. However, the said fact has been denied by the plaintiffs/revisionsits, as such, the matter on the point in issue has been passed on 22.07.2006. 14. In pursuance to the said development and order, Amin/Commissioner was appointed to submit a report. The said authority has submitted a report (15-9) and the possession of the premises was handed over to the plaintiffs/revisionists on 19.08.2006. 15. 14. In pursuance to the said development and order, Amin/Commissioner was appointed to submit a report. The said authority has submitted a report (15-9) and the possession of the premises was handed over to the plaintiffs/revisionists on 19.08.2006. 15. By means of the judgment and order dated 24.08.2011 passed in S.C.C. Revision No.21 of 2004, the trial Court has decreed the said suit, the relevant portion quoted herein below : - --- hindi ---------- 16. Aggrieved by the said facts, the present revision has been filed by the plaintiffs/revisionsits. So far it relates to award of the damages to them. 17. Shri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the revisionists their challenge the impugned order passed by the court below stating on one ground that the same is arbitrary in nature as while passing the same, the court below has failed to consider the lease deed which has been executed between Azra Begum and others by which a property which is situated in the same area has been let out to ICICI Brokeage Services Limited (IBSL) as paper no.93-C/1 Ta 11. So, keeping in view the said facts as well as provisions as provided under Section 76 read with section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act is contrary to facts and perverse in nature, liable to be set aside. 18. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the records. 19. In order to decide the said facts and other point involved in the present case, it will be appropriate that under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, a Division Bench of this Court in Laxmi Kishore and another v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545 it has been held as under : - "Para 18- The Court deciding a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has to satisfy itself that the trial courts' decree or order is according to law. Of course, the revisional court should keep in mind the Suprme Court's dictum in Naicker's case (supra) that a wrong decision on fact is also a decision according to law. Para 19- If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. Same will be the case where the finding is based only on inadmissible evidence. Para 19- If it finds that there is no evidence to sustain a finding on a particular issue of fact, it can ignore that finding. 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 all 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. Paara 20- 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 reassess or reappraise 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 after laying down proper guidelines. It cannot enter into the evidence, assess it and determine an issue of fact. Para 21- Our answer to the question referred to us is that in the stated circumstances, the revisional court has no power to consider the evidence for itself in order to determine an issue of fact. The proper course is to remand the case to the trial court." (See Nand Lal @ Nand Ram vs. Raja Ram 2010 (1) ARC 127 ). 20. Further, from the perusal of the impugned order, under challenged in the present revision, the court below while deciding the controversy in question has framed the point on determination and point no.2 is framed in respect of grant of damages. While giving the said point on the basis of the facts/material on record, the Court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs/revisionists are not entitled to claim the damages @ 6,000/- or Rs.8,000/- per day and decide the said point/issue against the plaintiffs/revisionists. 21. Keeping in view the said facts as well as submissions made by learned counsel for revisionists and settled law that the powers of a Revisional Court are limited under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. 21. Keeping in view the said facts as well as submissions made by learned counsel for revisionists and settled law that the powers of a Revisional Court are limited under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. As held by this court in the series of decisions that it is not open to the Revisional Court to go into the re-appraisal of the evidence was made before the Trial Court or to reverse the finding of fact arrived at by the Trial Court. (Rajeshwari Rajwar (Smt.) v. Smt. Harpriya Parihar, 2007 93) ARC 686 and Shree Ram Goyal and another v. Jitendra Kumar Gupta and another 2009 93) ARC 834). So, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionists on the basis of the sale deed executed between Smt. Azra Begum and others with ICICI Brokeage Services Limited (IBSL) challenging the impugned order has go no force, rejected, thus, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.08.2001 passed by Special Judge (Ayodhya Matter)/Additional District Judge/Judge Small Causes, Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No.9 of 2003. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.