S.S. Dhavan, J.
1. This is a civil revision against a decree of the learned Civil Judge, Varanasi dismissing the plaintiff applicant's suit for fixation ot rent under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The plaintiff, Munna Lal Govila, is the landlord of certain premises in Mohalla Maldhaiya, Varanasi and the defendant respondent J. N. Mathur, is his tenant. It appears that the defendant made an application to the District Magistrate who fixed the reasonable rent of the premises at Rs. 40 per mensem. Aggrieved by this decision the plaintiff filed a suit in the civil court on the ground that the decision of the District Magistrate is 'illegal, arbitrary and wholly ultra vires'. He contended that the reasonable rent of the premises should be Rs. 67/8/- per month. The learned Judge, after hearing the evidence of both the parties held that the proper rent was Rs. 40/- per mensem and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Aggrieved by this decision the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision.
2. After perusing the judgment of the learned Judge I am of the opinion that this revision is not maintainable, After a detailed examination of the evidence the trial court gave its verdict that the rent was Rs. 40/- per mensem. He may or may not have been right in his conclusion but this court cannot interfere with his decision in revision.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the trial court was guilty of a material irregularity and that it did not consider the evidence of certain witnesses produced by the plaintiff landlord and also ignored other evidence. But even if this contention he borne out by the record, it will not justify any interference by this Court under Section 115 C. P. C. The failure of the trial court to consider any part of the evidence at the time of writing or preparing its judgment is not a procedural error or a material irregularity within the meaning of Section 115 C. P. C., though it may be an error of law within the scope of Section 100 C. P. C. It is not the plaintiff's case that any part of his evidence ,was arbitrarily rejected by the trial court or that he was prevented from producing his witnesses. All that he can say is that the judgment discloses that the learned Judge must have ignored certain evidence which he considers vital. What is or is not vital is a matter of opinion and if the learned Judge has ignored some evidence which the plaintiff considers vital this at best amounts to an error of law.
4. In Kesardeo v. Radha Kishen, AIR 1953 SC 23 (28), it was observed that:
'the words illegality and material irregularity do not cover either errors of fact or law. They do not refer to the decision arrived at but to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated relate to material defects of procedure and not to errors of either law or fact after the formalities which the law prescribes have been complied with.
This observation was approved by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in Chaube Jagdish Prasad v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1959 SC 492.
5. The revision is, therefore, rejected; in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Parties are agreed however, that if the costs of the suit have already been realised by the defendant there shall be no restitution. This condition shall form part of the decree.