( 1 ) THIS revision petition is against the decree of both the Courts below for eviction of the suit premises passed against the present petitioner (original defendant ). The premises consist of one tenement House no TDX-46 situated at Adipur-Kutch. This property was purchased by opponent-plaintiff Bai Ladhibai Punjaram from one Lalchand Santdas in June 1962 as per Ex. 54. The present petitioner was a tenant in the said premises and therefore he automatically became the tenant of the present opponent. Though the present opponent became the landlady since 1967 the dispute was raised by issuing notice Ex. 51 dated 28 that the petitionertenant was in arrears of rent from 1-5-1970 to 30-9-1972 and therefore notice was given demanding the arrears of rent and also termination of the tenancy. This notice was admittedly received by the present petitioner on 6-11-1972 as per Ex. 53. It is an admitted position that notice was not replied to and no dispute about the standard rent nor paid up rent was raised within one month of the receipt of the said notice.

( 2 ) IN the trial Court the landlady (present opponent) who is really an illiterate rustic woman could not depose about all the facts but her husband was examined and he deposed to about the facts of non-payment of rent. He was extensively cross-examined. It was his case that the petitioner-tenant had not paid rent after 1-5-1970 meaning thereby he practically admitted that upto 30-4-1970 rent was paid. Questions were put to him whether he was maintaining receipt book according to the provisions of law and whether he was issuing receipts for the rent received. Though he stated that he was issuing receipts be could not produce the counter-foils of the receipts or the accounts to show what rent he had received and what he had not received. But the fact remains that on oral testimony on oath he specifically deposed that rent from 1-5-1970 was not received.

( 3 ) PROBABLY being over confident of his case the petitioner-tenant was not put into the witness-box thinking that because the landlady has not produced the counter-foils of receipts and accounts she cannot prove the case about the non-payment of rent. Therefore the petitioner -tenant was not put into the witness-box and it was stated that as the case of the opponent-landlady was weak she could not succeed and therefore non-examination of the petitioner-tenant would not be material for dismissing the suit of the opponent-plaintiff.

( 4 ) THIS argument of the petitioner-defendant was negatived by the learned trial Judge as well as the learned Appellate Judge. In fact though receipts are not produced evidence of the landladys husband clearly shows that rent was received upto 30-4-1970. If the Landlady wanted to come out with a false case her husband could have stated that no rent was paid because no receipts were issued and no accounts were maintained. But the evidence of the landladys husband clearly shows that rent was received upto 30-4-1970 and for that there are no receipts also. Now if the petitioner-tenants case is that he had paid the rent he could have stepped into the witness-box and stated on oath that he had paid the rent even after 1-5-1970 and then the question would arise whether the oral testimony of the husband of the landlady should be believed.

( 5 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that in Courts questions arise quite often on the strength of oral as well as documentary evidence. If there is no documentary evidence then Court will have to consider and weigh the oral evidence. In the instant case on behalf of the landlady her husband was examined and he stated on oath that the petitioner did not pay any rent after 1-5-1970. The petitioner-tenant did not enter into the witnessbox to depose on oath that he had paid rent after 1-5-1970. If this would have been the evidence then in absence of receipts or accounts from the landlady it would have been open for the Court to come to the conclusion that it would beli