ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This petition arises out of an order of eviction passed in proceedings initiated before the Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad. An application under Section 21 was instituted by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground that admitted rent has not be deposited for the period 1.5.2007 to 1.10.2007. The landlord entered appearance and offered to pay the entire outstanding rent under Section 20(4) of the Act. The record reflects that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- was deposited, although according to landlord, rent for a period of 20 months had fallen due by then.
(2.) The application was allowed by the Trial Court with a finding that the tenant has not deposited rent for the period in question. So far as dispute with regard to rent receipt for certain subsequent months was concerned, a finding was returned that they are not genuine documents. Thus aggrieved, tenant preferred a revision which has also been rejected. The Revisional Court although has accepted the genuineness of rent receipts for four months, but even thereafter has returned a finding that admitted rent in terms of Section 20(4) has not been deposited, and therefore tenant was liable to be evicted. Aggrieved by the two orders, the tenant has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bharat Pratap Singh for the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the evidence led before the Court below, in order to demonstrate that findings are illegal. However, learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate any perversity in the judgement of the Revisional Court. The finding that on the first date of appearance, admitted amount of rent was not paid, could not be disputed. Even if the rent receipts of four months were to be taken into consideration, even then the tenant had only deposited admitted rent of eight months, which still leaves a short fall of eight months. The finding returned by the Court below on the material aspect that tenant has failed to deposit rent for a period of four months and that he was not entitled to protection under Section 20 (4) of the Act, are based upon materials brought on record, which are neither perverse nor erroneous and therefore, requires no interference.;