The revisional Court has no jurisdiction to re-appraise the evidence and disturb the finding of the J. S. C. C. on the various questions of fact.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a judgment and order D/- 21-5-1981 of the Additional District Judge, Nainital, whereby allowing the revision of the respondent No. 2 the landlord, he decreed the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages against the petitioner-tenant.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent with allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the shop in question since the times of its previous owner Kala Devi on Rs. 6. 00 per month rent, from whom the respondent purchased it by sale deed dated 6-6-1972, and by a deed of assignment dated 5-9-1972 she assigned the right of recovery of rent from the petitioner who was in arrears since 2-7-1955. On 2-3-1973 the respondent sent a notice of demand and termination which was served on the petitioner on 5-31973 but he failed to comply and rendered himself liable to ejectment. Leaving the claim for the period which had become time barred, arrears of rent was claimed w. e. f. 25-8-1970.

( 3 ) THE suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant who pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 10. 00 and not Rs. 6. 00 per month since 1979, the defendant-tenant was not in arrears of rent from 2-7-1955 rather had paid the rent up to 5-6-1972 to Sint. Kala Devi. After the purchase of the building by the respondent tendered, and thereafter sent by money order three months rent, which was refused, whereupon Rs. 40. 00 rent for four months was deposited under Section 30 of Act 13 of 1972 and thereafter further rent was deposited in the following manner :-Rs. 60/- rent from 6-10-1972 to 5-3-1973 on 6-3-1973rs. 30/- rent from 6-3-1973 to 5-6-1973 on 3-6-1973rs. 80/- rent from 6-6-1973 to 5-2-1974 on 5-1-1974

( 4 ) THE petitioner thus did not commit any default yet, however, he deposited the entire rent demanded along with interest and costs etc. in the Court on the first date of hearing and is liable to be saved from ejectment.

( 5 ) THE learned J. S. C. C. held the rate of rent to be Rs. 10 per month, that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant did not pay rent from 2-7-1955 to 5-6-1972 to Kala Devi, and She did not legally transfer her right to recover rent for the said period to the plaintiff, the defendant tendered the rent Rs: 30/-from 6-3-1972 to 5-6-1972 and on his refusal to accept the same deposited it as well as rent up to 5-3-1973 under Section 30 on 6-3-1973 as per challan. The defendant though in arrears for six months on 2-3-1973, the date of notice, deposited the same within one month under Section 30, he did not commit any default within the meaning of Section 20 of Act 13 of 1972 and was not liable to ejectment. He accordingly dismissed the suit.

( 6 ) THE revisional Court held the rate of rent to be Rs. 6. 00 per month, as per endorsement on the back of the rent note, rent only up to 2-7-1955 was paid to Kala Devi, the petitioner-defendant was in arrears since 2-7-1955, the assignment in favour of the respondent was valid, the defendant did not tender or pay the rent due after service of the notice on 5-3-1973 to the respondent and had no right to deposit the same under Section 30 thereafter, he thus was a defaulter, the deposit of Rs: 179. 77 was not sufficient to claim the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. With these findings he disagreeing with the J. S. C. C. decreed the suit.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for both the parties have been heard and the material placed on record perused.

( 8 ) ON behalf of the defendant-petitioner, it is contended that the revisional Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in re-appraising the evidence to disturb the finding of the J. S. C. C. on the various questions of fact. It had no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of the J. S. C. C. that the rent up to 5-6-1972 stood paid to the previous landlord Kala Devi, and consequently there could be no assignment of the right to recover the rent of the said period by her to the plaintiff-respondent, and that the rent after the period 5-6-1972 was validly