- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is tenant's writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Prem Swarup Mishra filed S. C. C. Suit No. 12 of 1990 against tenant-petitioner for his eviction and recovery of ar rears of rent. It was stated that the shop in dispute was constructed in 1985-86 hence Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable thereupon. It was further stated that property in dispute which is a shop was given on rent to the petitioner with ef fect from 1. 8. 1986 at the rate of rent of Rs. 200/- per month and petitioner paid rent only for three months and no rent had been paid since 1. 11. 1986.
(2.) TENANT-petitioner filed written statement and contended that building was old construction hence the Act was applicable; that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month; that money order of rent sent by him was refused by the land lord. The Trial Court held that rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. Judge Small Causes Court further held that the Act was not applicable. It was also held that rent had not been paid since 1. 11. 1986. Accordingly, suit was decreed through judgment and decree dated 19. 12. 1995 for eviction as well as for recov ery of arrears of rent. Against the said judgment and decree S. C. C. Revision No. 1 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner. Vth Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Oral dismissed the revision on 31. 10. 2000 hence this writ petition. Revisional Court held that as the petitioner was defaulter hence there was no need to decide as to whether Act was applicable or not. Landlord had tiled three counter foils of the receipts for the months of August, September and October, 1986 showing payment of rent at the rate of Ks. 200/- per month. Both the Courts below held that counter foils of the receipts were proved by the landlord. Revisional Court tallied the signatures of the tenant on the counter foils of the receipts and on vakalatnama, written state ment etc. and held that both the signatures were quite similar. Tenant did not adduce any ex parte evidence.
(3.) TENANT had deposited some amount claiming benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. However, the amount was deposited at the rate of Rs. ISO/- per month and as it was held by the Courts below that rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month hence deposit was quite short. I do not find least error in the findings of the Revisional Court. Findings regarding rate of rent being Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. ISO/- per month are basically findings of fact and even otherwise those findings are quite correct and based upon correct appraisal of evidence.;