JUDGMENT Yashodanadnan, J. - This is a revision by the defendant arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-opposite party for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and ejectment of the application from the premises in dispute. 2. Admittedly while the opposite party happens to be the landlady of the disputed house, the applicant was a tenant thereof. The suit was instituted on the ground that originally the applicant was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40 but in July, 1969 it was agreed between the parties that the rent would be enhanced to Rs. 50 from the month of August, 1969 and the opposite party actually did pay rent for the month of August, 1969 at the enhanced rate for which the applicant gave a receipt on a printed form to the opposite party and obtained his signature on the counter-foil of the receipt. Thereafter, the opposite party did not pay rent inspite of receipt. Thereafter, the opposite party did not pay rent inspite of repeated demands. The plaintiff thereupon gave a notice dated 6th September, 1970 demanding arrears of rent and terminating the applicant's tenancy. Since the rent in arrears remained unpaid inspite of the notice of demand, hence the suit making a claim for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 1,460-60P. Eviction of the applicant was also sought on the alternative ground that he had caused damage to the premises demised. 3. The suit was contested by the applicant who asserted that he was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 only, that the rent had never paid Rs. 40 per month and it was never enhanced to Rs. 50 as alleged by the landlord. According to the plaintiff the husband of the plaintiff who used to realise rent generally gave no receipt and sometimes when a receipts was demanded, he used to issue receipt on plain paper. It was denied by the applicant that he had received any printed receipt and it was alleged by him that the plaintiff's husband had fraudulently obtained his signature on a printed receipt from saying that a duly executed receipt will be sent later on which was never received by him. It was denied by the applicant that he had received any printed receipt and it was alleged by him that the plaintiff's husband had fraudulently obtained his signature on a printed receipt from saying that a duly executed receipt will be sent later on which was never received by him. It was also alleged by the applicant that on the 2nd of March, 1970 the plaintiff's husband had realised an amount of Rs. 150 from him as rent for the months of September, 1969 to January, 1970 at the rate of Rs. 30 per month and given a receipt on plain paper for the same. The applicant also resisted the claim on the allegation that he had spent an amount of Rs. 208-75 P. On repairs of the house with the consent of the plaintiff out of which a sum of Rs. 50 had been adjusted against rent and the rest remained to be adjusted against rent falling due in future. The allegation that any damage had been caused to the house in the tenancy of the applicant was repudiated. 4. The suit was tried on the Small Cause Court side and it was held by the learned judge of the Court of Small Cause that the rate of rent was Rs. 30 per month only and not Rs. 50 per month as claimed by the plaintiff. It was held that it had not been proved that the applicant had spent an amount of Rs. 208.75 P. on the repairs of the house with the consent of the plaintiff or that there was any agreement to adjust any amount spent on repairs against the rent. The trial Court found that the rent for the period 1st February, 1970 to 31st December, 1971 amounting to Rs. 690 was due, that the applicant had sent the rent due by money order which had been refused by the applicant and thus there was no fault. In view of these findings, the trial Court held that the landlady was only entitled to a decree of Rs. 690 as arrears of rent and she was not entitled to eject the applicant and consequently the claim was decreed for an amount of Rs. 690. Decree for ejectment of the applicant was refused as well as amount in excess of Rs. 690 claimed by the plaintiff. 5. 690 as arrears of rent and she was not entitled to eject the applicant and consequently the claim was decreed for an amount of Rs. 690. Decree for ejectment of the applicant was refused as well as amount in excess of Rs. 690 claimed by the plaintiff. 5. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff-opposite party filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. It was contended before the revisional Court that the finding of the trial Court that the rent was only Rs. 30 per month was perverse and the Court below had erred in law in not granting a decree for ejectment of the applicant. The learned District Judge, Aligarh, who heard the revision, observed that after going through the evidence and the judgment of the trial Court, he was clearly of the opinion that the trial Court had committed several errors of law in assessing the evidence and the wrong approach has vitiated its judgment. Admittedly, the plaintiff opposite party's husband used to realise rent on behalf of the landlady. He gave oral evidence fully supporting the case set up the plaintiff with regard to the rate of the rent. The trial Court had disbelieved him only on the ground that he was an interested witness. The Court below has expressed the opinion that the mere fact that a witness was interested did not justify the total rejection of his testimony but all that was required was that the testimony of such a witness must be examined with caution and scrutinised carefully. On behalf of the plaintiff, municipal assessment records had been produced which showed that the rental value of the house of Rs. 480 per year. The trial Court had refused to give any weight to this documentary evidence because in its opinion it was not admissible evidence. It further observed that at any event, the municipal assessment record was a weak type of evidence. The Court below on the other hand took the view that the finding of the trial Court had been vitiated because it had refused to take into account the municipal assessment records which were admissible records which were admissible in evidence and fully corroborated the testimony of the husband of the plaintiff opposite party. The Court below also on an examination of Ext. The Court below also on an examination of Ext. A-5 held that this piece of documentary evidence has been completely misread by the trial Court which had failed to take into account the fact that part of the writing had been obliterated by its being score over. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has contended relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar and others v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhary, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 698, that it was not open to the revisional Court exercising powers under Section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to review the evidence on record and reverse a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. In my opinion, the decision relied upon does not help the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. This is a case in which according to the revisional Court the finding recorded had been vitiated by a wrong approach to the evaluation of the oral testimony by rejecting evidence which was admissible and by misreading of another piece of documentary evidence on record. Under the circumstances I do not find it possible to hold that the Court below was not competent to record its own finding on the question as to what was the rent agreed upon between the parties. 6. For the reason given, I find no force in this revision which is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has given an undertaking that his client will vacate the premises in dispute, without the plaintiff opposite party having to take steps for executing the decree, voluntarily within a period of four months from today. It is consequently ordered that the applicant shall not be evicted from the house in dispute for a period of four months from today. The applicant will pay to the plaintiff entire decretal amount including costs within a period of six weeks from today. It is also made clear that during the period applicant continues to remain in possession on the basis of the order of this Court, he will continue to pay rent at the rate found due by the Court below by 7th of each month in advance. It is also made clear that during the period applicant continues to remain in possession on the basis of the order of this Court, he will continue to pay rent at the rate found due by the Court below by 7th of each month in advance. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated If there is default in compliance with the conditions set out above the order permitting the conditions set out above the order permitting the tenant to continue in possession for four months shall become inoperative.