Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist (tenant) and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent (landlady).

2. Learned counsel for both the parties agree for final disposal of the revision at the out set with reference to the documents annexed with the revision and accompanying the stay application.

3. The landlady Smt. Premwati filed SCC Suit No. 6 of 2007 for eviction of the tenant from the shop in dispute situate in Mohalla Narain Nagar, Etah. The suit has been decreed by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.10. 2014 passed by the Small Causes Court.

4. It may be pertinent to note that the defence of the tenant was ordered to be struck of earlier and the said order was affirmed in revision vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the High Court.

5. The Court below in decreeing the suit has returned findings that the rent of the shop is Rs. 1,400/-per month, the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and that the deposits made by the tenant under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not valid.

6. In assailing the impugned judgment and order of the Court below Sri P.K. Jain has submitted :

(i) The landlady has herself not appeared in the witness box and as such failed to prove the plaint case;

(ii) The evidence of even Ram Babu about the rate of rent is sketchy and does not prove that the rent was ever enhanced to Rs. 1,400/- per month;

(iii) The Court below has failed to consider as to whether the tenant is entitle to benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act; and

(iv) The deposits made by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act are valid deposits and merely for the reason that they were not held to be valid for the purpose of order XV Rule 5 CPC the same can not be ignored for the purposes of Section 20 (4) of the Act.

7. On the other hand, Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the landlady states that there is no illegality in not producing the landlady as witness. She is an old lady of feeble health unable to attend Court and that his son who had personal knowledge of the matters had appeared and proved the rate of rent. The finding on rate of rent is based upon the evidence and in the absence of any contra evidence there is no perversity in the said finding. Moreover, the said finding is a finding of fact which is not liable to be disturbed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. The deposits, if any, made by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act are only till the date of notice and any deposit made by the tenant after the service of notice of demand would not be a valid deposit so as to enure to his benefit for the purpose of Section 20 (4) of the Act.

8. The suit of the plaintiff is for arrears of rent and eviction under the provisions of Small Causes Court Act, 1887. It is a small causes suit which is of a summary nature wherein by virtue of Order L Rule 1 (a) (iii) CPC it is not necessary to settle issues but in view of Order XX Rule 4 CPC the Court is obliged to state the concise statement of the case, the points of determination and the decision thereof with reasons in its judgment. However, to succeed in any suit much less in a suit of summary nature before Small Causes Court, the plaintiff has to prove his plaint case even if there is no defence or the defence of the opponent had been struck of.

9. It is admitted that the defence of the defendant was ordered to be struck of and that the plaintiff herself has not entered in the witness box to state her case on oath and to prove it instead her son Ram Babu alone was examined and cross examined as a witness. She has not even filed any affidavit or herself examination in chief on affidavit so as to offer her for cross-examination.

10. The Privy Council in Sardar Gurbaksh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and another, AIR 1927 PC 230, held that a presumption would arise that the case set up by the par