Concurrent findings on agreed rent and notice service cannot be disturbed in revision absent perversity, illegality, or no evidence.

Concurrent findings on agreed rent and service of termination notice were upheld because they were supported by rent receipts, oral evidence, photographs, an independent electricity arrangement, pleadings, and postal tracking material. The revisional court reiterated that interference in small causes revision is confined to findings that are illegal, perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by misreading or non-consideration of material evidence; none of those grounds existed here. A plea that notice was sent to the wrong address, not raised in the pleadings, was rejected. The review/recall application therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the trial court fixing the agreed rent and holding that notice of termination was duly served suffered from perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference in revision and review.

Analysis: The trial court had considered the location and nature of the premises, the area let out, the rent receipts, the oral evidence, the photographs of the building, the independent electricity arrangement and the surrounding circumstances before concluding that the agreed rent was not the amount asserted by the tenant. On the question of notice, the court relied on the pleadings, the speed-post receipt and the tracking report, and rejected the unpleaded plea that notice was sent to a wrong address. The revisional court held that, in the limited jurisdiction under the governing revisional provision, it could interfere only where the findings were illegal, perverse, based on no evidence, or resulted in miscarriage of justice, and none of those grounds was made out.

Conclusion: The findings on agreed rent and service of notice were upheld, and no interference was called for; the review/recall application was therefore rejected in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: In a small causes revision, concurrent findings of fact based on legal evidence cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse, illegal, or vitiated by misreading or non-consideration of material evidence.

---