Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (Act No. 9 of 1887) preferred by a tenant against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby landlord’s suit for the arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed.

2. Briefly stated the facts are; the respondent-landlord had let out a shop, bearing Municipal number Shop No. 3 of House No. 457 (for short, “disputed shop”) to one Madan Lal at the rate of Rs 450 per month. In November 2003 a dispute arose between parties in respect of enhancement of the rent. According to the Land lord a settlement arrived at between the parties to enhance the rent at the rate of 1250 per month and he also agreed that after every three years rent shall be enhanced at rate of 10%.

3. After the said settlement, it is stated that tenant continued to pay the rent at the enhanced rate but from November 2005 they stopped the payment of the rent completely. The tenant Sri Madan Lal unfortunately passed away on 7.1.2007. After his death his wife, revisionist No. 1 and his son revisionist No. 2, inherited his tenancy.

4. The respondent landlord made several request for payment of arrear of the rent but no attention was paid by the revisionists. Thereafter landlord sent a Notice dated 17.12.2008 whereby she demanded arrear of rent and determined their tenancy. The notice was duly served upon the revisionists and they replied the same. In their reply they denied any arrear of rent. Thereupon the landlord instituted a suit in the Court of Additional District Judge for recovery of arrear of rent from 6th March 2006 to 5th March 2009, damages at the rate of Rs. 3500 per month and eviction of the revisionists from the disputed shop.

5. It was stated that the shop is more than ten years old, therefore, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) are applicable.

6. The tenant-revisionists filed their Written Statement and contested the case. It is stated that from 1.12.2008 the revisionists are regularly depositing the rent. They had offered the rent of two months from 1.12.2008 to 31.1.2009 at the rate of Rs 450 per month to landlord through money order but when she refused to accept it, the revisionists deposited it with 9% interest in the Court of JSCC under the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code (for short the “CPC”) before the first date of hearing.

7. In the Written statement rate of rent was also disputed. It was averred that at the time when late Sri Madan Lal was tenant, the rent was Rs 225 per month only. It is also stated that the landlord did not issue any rent receipt.

8. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court framed five issues for determination. The issue No. 1 was framed with regard to the rate of rent; the second issue was framed whether the parties had some settlement for the enhancement of the rent in the year 2003 to Rs. 1250/- per month. Both the issues were decided in favour of the tenant and the Court below has not accepted the stand taken by the plaintiff-landlord that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1250/- per month. It was further held that there was no such agreement between the parties, The Court below has recorded a finding that rent was Rs. 250 per month. It has relied on the municipal record filed by the tenants/revisionists to establish that rent was never enhanced and the landlord failed to prove that rent was enhanced from Rs. 450/- to Rs. 1250/- per month.

9. The Judge, Small Causes Court while deciding issue No. 3 found that the tenant has failed to establish that the rent has been paid by him regularly and there was no default. A finding has been recorded by the Court that the tenant has deposited the receipt of the Money Order 58-Ga and 59-Ga, which indicate that the tenant had offered the rent from 01 December 2008 to 31 January 2009 through the Money Order, but no evidence has been filed by the tenan