JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This revision arises from a suit for ejectment and recovery of the arrears of rent in dispute of a shop situate in Bareilly Cantonment. 2. The applicant was the plaintiff and came to court with the allegations that the defendant opposite party was a tenant of the shop in suit on payment of Rs. 50/- per month as rent ; that he was in arrears of rent from June 1970 to July, 1971 when the notice of demand and quit was sent to him on 16th August, 1971 which was served on 20th August, 1971 ; that the defendant having failed to pay the arrears, he was liable to be ejected on the ground of default in payment of rent in spite of the notice of demand. The defendant pleaded that the rate of rent was only Rs. 25/- per month ; that the rent up to April, 1971 had been paid up ; that the notice was invalid and that even the rent for the period after April, 1971 had been tendered to the plaintiff applicant by money orders which were wrongfully refused and that under the circumstances the suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. The suit was tried by the court of Judge Small Causes, Bareily, who dismissed it in respect of the relief of ejectment but decreed it for recovery of Rs. 91.12p. only on account of rent. The learned Judge found that the rate at which rent was payable was Rs. 25/- per month that the rent up to April, 1971 stood paid up and that the rent for the period May, 1971 to October, 1971 had been sent by the defendant every month by money-orders but the same were wrongfully refused by the plaintiff, and that the notice of demand was invalid. 4. On revision by the plaintiff applicant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Bareilly confirmed the said findings and dismissed the revision. The present revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code is directed against his judgment. 5. 4. On revision by the plaintiff applicant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Bareilly confirmed the said findings and dismissed the revision. The present revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code is directed against his judgment. 5. Sri G.P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant, contended that the finding of the learned Judge Small Cause Court on the question of default was vitiated in law on account of the reliance placed by him on the observation to the effect that it is not disputed that the petitioner (defendant opposite party in the present proceedings) has paid rent to the opposite party No. 4 plaintiff applicant in the present proceedings) upto April, 1971 contained in the judgment of this Court in Hans Raj v. Administrative Commandant, Station Head Quarters Bareilly Cantonment, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 98 of 1972, and the learned Additional District Judge, instead of correcting that error on revision, also fell into the same error and thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and, at any rate, acted with material illegality in the exercise of that jurisdiction. He further contended that the finding that the rent for the subsequent period had been tendered by money-orders sent every month was based on no evidence , and that in any view of the matter the finding of the learned Additional District Judge to the effect that the defendant opposite party could not be declared a defaulter as more than three months rent was not due against him when the notice of demand was served on 20th August, 1971 is based on a complete misconception of law, inasmuch as the shop in suit was situated within the Cantonment limits of Bareilly where the law applicable was not the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 but the U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act No. 10 of 1952, where under it was not necessary that more than three months rent must be due before a default in payment of rent could occur by failure to pay the rent due within one month of the service of a notice of demand. 6. In support of his first contention, Sri Bhargava invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. 6. In support of his first contention, Sri Bhargava invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 98 of 1972, a certified copy of which in Ext. A-6 on the record and urged that the question whether rent had been paid or not was not in issue in those proceedings and the observations contained in that judgment, which had been relied upon by the two courts below for holding that the rent upto April 1971 stood paid up was a mere passing observation and wholly irrelevant in the present suit. The learned Judge Small Causes Court had based his finding entirely on that observation. It was vitiated in law. In support of his second contention, Sri Bhargava urged that the money order coupons did not contain any endorsement by the port-man to show that the plaintiff applicant had refused to receive the rent and, at any rate, no evidence was produced to prove that the rent had been duly tendered by the defendant opposite party but refused by the plaintiff applicant. 7. Sri A.N. Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party urged that it had been alleged by the present defendant opposite party who was the petitioner in that case that he was a tenant of the shop in question of which the present plaintiff applicant who was the fourth opposite party in that writ petition was the landlord that the tenancy had commenced in the year 1965 ; that the rent up to April, 1971 had been received by the landlord but that dispute arose between the parties thereafter which led to a suit for injunction filed by the present defendant opposite party for restraining the landlord from dispossessing him by force and that the landlord had refused to accept rent from the petitioner thereafter and a notice dated 11th November, 1971 had been served by the Administrative Commandant, Station Head Quarters of the Bareilly Cantonment asking the present defendant opposite party to vacate the shop on the ground that he was an unauthorised occupant and that the Administrative Commandant having proceeded to direct eviction of the present defendant opposite party from the shop in suit by a notice dated 23rd December, 1971, the writ petition was filed for quashing the said notice and for a mandamus directing the opposite party not to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in suit. The issue before this Court in that proceeding was whether the present defendant was a tenant of that shop since 1965, and not an unauthorised occupant, and it was in that context that it was alleged that the rent up to April, 1971 had been duly received by the landlord and that the rent for the subsequent period had been tendered to him but refused. It was urged that it cannot, therefore, he said that the fact of payment of rent was not relevant in those proceedings for the court's finding that the defendant applicant was a tenant and not an unauthorised occupant, on the basis of which the Court quashed the notice and directed the respondents to the writ petition including the present plaintiff applicant, not to dispossess the present defendant opposite party from the shop in question except in accordance with law. It was also urged that having served the notice of demand and quit in August, 1971 the present plaintiff applicant tried to forcibly dispossess the present defendant opposite party from the shop in suit whereupon Suit No. 185 of 1971 was filed by the latter in the court of Munsiff Hawaii for an injunction restraining the present plaintiff applicant from dispossessing the present defendant opposite party and from taking legal proceedings on the basis of notice of termination dated 16th August, 1971, whereupon the court of Munsif was even pleased to grant an injunction vide order dated 4th December 1971, a copy of which is Ext. A-8. He also invited my attention to the certified copies of the money order coupons (Ext. A-9, Ext. A-10, Ext. A-11, Ext. A-12, Ext. A-13 and A-14) which show that the rent for the month of May, 1971 amounting to Rs. 25/- and electric charges for five days of that month amounting to Rs. 1.50 p. had been sent by money-order vide Ext. A-9 ; that thereafter the said amount of Rs. 26.50p. plus the further rent for June, 1975 (total Rs. 51.50p) was again sent by money-order vide Ext. A-10, the third money-order for Rs. 76.50p was sent vide Ext. A-11 and then the money order for Rs. 101.50 p. was sent on 16th August, 1971 but refused on 27th August, 1971 vide Ext. A-12 Ext. A-13 shows that the sum of Rs. 126-50.p was sent by money order and finally Ext. A-14 shows that the sum of Rs. A-10, the third money-order for Rs. 76.50p was sent vide Ext. A-11 and then the money order for Rs. 101.50 p. was sent on 16th August, 1971 but refused on 27th August, 1971 vide Ext. A-12 Ext. A-13 shows that the sum of Rs. 126-50.p was sent by money order and finally Ext. A-14 shows that the sum of Rs. 151.50p. was sent by money order as the rent for the months of May to October, 1971 and electric charges for five days of May, 1971. 8. Having perused the said judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 98 of 1972 and the money order coupons vide Exts. A-9 to A-14, I am of opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff applicant are not correct. The findings recorded by the Judges Small Causes to the effect that the rent up to April, 1971, stood fully paid up and that the rent for the subsequent months had regularly been tendered by money-orders sent by the defendant opposite party but had wrongfully been refused by the plain- tiff applicant, are findings of fact and cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. 9. In this view of the matter, the first two contentions raised by Sri Bhargava must fail. With regard to his third contention, it has to be observed that the rent for the months of May to October, 1971 and at any rate up to July, 1971 having been tendered regularly every month and again by money order dated 16th August, 1971 which was refused by the plaintiff applicant on 27th August, 1971, it Cannot be said that the defendant opposite party committed any default in payment of rent even within the meaning of section 14(a) of the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952. 10. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs.