ORDER A. N. Verma, J. - This petition by a tenant is directed against judgments and decrees passed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 decreeing a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 against Mohini Mohan Chakrawarty, the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, for ejectment from a building on the ground of default. 2. Shortly stated the plaint case was that Mohini Mohan Chakravarty was a tenant of the plaintiff on a monthly rental of Rs. 45/-, which was raised to Rs. 56.25 with effect from 15-7-1972 under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The defendant fell in arrears of rent. The plaintiff, thereupon served a combined notice of demand dated 22-9-1973 on the defendant claiming the arrears of rent and also determining the tenancy of the defendants. The defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the accommodation and hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the said Mohini Mohan Chakarvarty. In the written statement, it was asserted that the defendant had been tendering the rent to the plaintiff by money orders but each time the plaintiff was refusing to accept the same. Earlier the plaintiff had demanded the arrears of rent by a notice dated 3.8-1973. In response to the said notice the defendant remitted to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 370.70 on 23-8-1973 which the plaintiff avoided to receive. The plaintiff had also neglected to discharge the responsibility of white washing and carrying out essential repairs in the house. The defendant, therefore, sent a written notice to the plaintiff calling upon him to carry out the repairs and to have the house white washed. The plaintiff, however, failed to carry out the repairs and white washing, as a result of which the defendant himself had to have the house white washed and to make it wind proof and water proof. In the process the defendant spent Rs. 141.70 but as the defendant was legally entitled to claim only an amount equal to two months' rent for effecting the repairs and white washing, the defendant deducted only a sum of Rs. 90/- from the amount claimed by the plaintiff through his aforesaid notice dated 3-8-1973. In the process the defendant spent Rs. 141.70 but as the defendant was legally entitled to claim only an amount equal to two months' rent for effecting the repairs and white washing, the defendant deducted only a sum of Rs. 90/- from the amount claimed by the plaintiff through his aforesaid notice dated 3-8-1973. In regard to the enhancement of rent claimed by the plaintiff under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1572 the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was legally not entitled to enhance the existing rent of Rs. 45/-, 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues. It came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to claim enhanced rent of Rs. 56.25 p. from 15-7-1972. On the issue whether the defendant was entitled to claim deduction on account of the repairs and white washing effected by him, the trial court observed that as the defendant had not paid any court fee in respect of the adjustment claimed on account of repairs and white washing, he was not entitled to the adjustment of Rs. 90/- claimed by him against the rent demanded from him by the plaintiff. 5. In regard to the questions of default the trial court held as follows :- "The defendant no doubt remitted the amount of Rs. 370.70 P. within one month of the receipt of the notice dated 3rd August, 1973, but inasmuch as, the defendant had not remitted a sum of Rs. 56.70 P. claimed as water-tax due from him for the period 1-12-1972 to 31-8-73 calculated at the rate of Rs. 6.30 P. per month, the amount of Rs. 370.70 P. sent by the defendant by money order to the plaintiff could not be treated to be a valid tender, as the amount remitted was short of the amount claimed by or due to the plaintiff." 6. Having held that the tender of Rs. 370.70 P. was not valid, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the defendant had committed a default. 7. On these findings the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment as well as for recovery of alleged rent and damages for the use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 62.55 per month (56.25+6.30). 8. 370.70 P. was not valid, the trial court reached to the conclusion that the defendant had committed a default. 7. On these findings the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment as well as for recovery of alleged rent and damages for the use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 62.55 per month (56.25+6.30). 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decree, the defendant filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act which has been party allowed by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Allahabad by his order dated 29th August, 1972. 9. The learned District Judge disagreed with the trial court on the issue whether the plaintiff had rightfully enhanced the rent from Rs. 45/- to Rs. 56.25 P. and held that the plaintiff was not so entitled. With regard to the question of default the learned District Judge agreed with the conclusion of the trial court but based his decision on a different finding. The learned District Judge held that it was not proved that the defendant had remitted the sum of Rs. 370.70 P. on 23-8-1973. However, in regard to the sum of Rs. 90/- claimed by the defendant as having been spent over the repairs and white washing the statement of the defendant could not be accepted as proof of the fact that the defendant had carried out any repairs as asserted by him (it may be recalled here that the trial court had given no finding on merits on this issue on the ground that the defendant had not paid court fee on the amount of Rs. 90/-). The revisional court has also observed that the sum of Rs. 370.70 P. remitted by the defendant not being the full amount claimed by the plaintiff by means of the notice of demand, the defendant had clearly committed default. 10. On the aforesaid findings, the revisional court partly allowed the revision and modified the decree of the trial court. So far as the recovery of arrears of rent and damages is concerned, in view of his finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim enhanced rent of Rs. 56.25 p. the learned District Judge decreed the suit only at the rate of rent of Rs. 45/- per month plus Rs. 6.30 p. by way of water tax, that is Rs. 51.30 per month. 56.25 p. the learned District Judge decreed the suit only at the rate of rent of Rs. 45/- per month plus Rs. 6.30 p. by way of water tax, that is Rs. 51.30 per month. It may be noted that the plaintiff has not filed any petition against the decree of the learned District Judge granting arrears of appellant and damages at the unenhanced rate of rent of Rs. 45/-. 11. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the facts found by the trial court as well as proved on the record, the defendant cannot be said to have committed any default and that the decision of the courts below to the contrary is vitiated by errors of law which are apparent on the face of the record. 12. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand urged that the finding of the courts below that the defendant has committed a default is perfectly correct in law and calls for no interference by this court. 13. I shall first take up the issue of default. Admittedly, the arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff were due for the period beginning from 1st of December, 1972. It is not disputed that rent due for the period before 1-12-1972 stands paid up. According to the defendant, the rent for the period 1-12-1972 to 31st of August, 1973 worked out to Rs. 405/- calculating at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month whereas the water-tax for the same period worked out to Rs. 56.70. The two amounts totalled upto Rs. 461.70 p. The defendant claimed a deduction of Rs. 90/- out of this amount of Rs. 461.70 p. on account of white washing and repairs charges already stated. Deducting Rs. 90/- from Rs. 451.70 the defendant sent Rs. 370.70 p. to the plaintiff by money order. The trial court had accepted the case of the defendant that the sum of Rs. 370.70 p. had been remitted by the defendant to the plaintiff by money order, but as in its view it fell short of the amount due from the defendant, the tender of Rs. 370.70 could not be treated to be valid in law. The revisional court, however, went into the further question whether it was proved that the defendant had remitted the sum of Rs. 370.70 p. on 23-8-1973. 14. 370.70 could not be treated to be valid in law. The revisional court, however, went into the further question whether it was proved that the defendant had remitted the sum of Rs. 370.70 p. on 23-8-1973. 14. The revisional court clearly transgressed his jurisdiction in entering into a new issue of fact for the first time in a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The issue whether the defendant had remitted the sum of Rs. 370.70 on 23-8-1973, assuming that such an issue had been raised by the plaintiff, though there is no evidence to show that such an issue was raised before the trial court, was undeniably an issue purely of fact. The revisional court was, therefore, not entitled to go into that issue of fact for the first time in a revision and at any rate to decide that issue of fact for itself. This legal position has been made amply clearly by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Kishore and others v. Har Prakash Shukla, 1979 All. W . C. 746. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of this decision completely support the view which I am taking as regards the jurisdiction of the revisional court. 15. Even on merits of the aforesaid issue, the finding of the learned District Judge does not appear to be correct. In support of the assertion that the defendant had remitted a sum of Rs. 370.70 by money order to the plaintiff on 23-8-1973 the defendant had not only given his own statement but had filed the money order coupan (Ext. A-2C) as well as the official communication (paper No. 19/C/22) a true copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure-7. This is an official communication from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad Division, Allahabad addressed to Sri Bhola Nath Chakravarty-petitioner No. 1-in which the money order in question has been referred to as the subject of the communication and it is stated that the money order was paid to the remitter on 17-1-1974. A true copy of the money order coupan has also been annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the money order coupan the address of the plaintiff has been given correctly. The amount remitted has also been mentioned as Rs. A true copy of the money order coupan has also been annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the money order coupan the address of the plaintiff has been given correctly. The amount remitted has also been mentioned as Rs. 370.70 The learned District Judge has, however, observed that the money order coupan does not give the date on which the amount was remitted. As regards, the official communication (paper No. 19/C/22) the learned District Judge has observed that the same is not admissible in evidence, though it has not been stated why the said communication is not admissible in evidence. I do not agree with the learned District Judge. Paper No 19/C/22 is clearly admissible in evidence under section 74(l)(iii) as forming an act of a public officer. Learned counsel cited a decision reported in A.I.R. 1928 Oudh 488 in which a simple letter from the Controller of Military Accounts written in reply to a query from the court acknowledging attachment of a certain sum of money was held to be a public document an the ground that it formed the act of a public officer within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am in respectful agreement with the above statement of law. Following the said decision I hold that paper No. 19/C/22 was admissible in evidence and the observations of the learned District Judge to the contrary is manifestly erroneous in law. The said communication clearly gives the date on which the money order was remitted. Besides the said communication there was also the statement of the defendant to the same effect. 16. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that both on the ground that the learned District Judge was not justified in entering into the issue of fact whether the money order was remitted on 23-8-1973 in the revision as well as on the ground that he wrongly rejected the letter of the Superintendent of Post Offices (19/C/223 I hold that the defendant did sent the money order on 23-8-1973. The trial court was right in proceeding on the assumption that the money order was remitted on 23-8-1973 and the learned District Judge fell into a manifest error of law in holding to the contrary. 17. The question which next arises for consideration is as to the effect of the defendant's sending the amount of Rs. The trial court was right in proceeding on the assumption that the money order was remitted on 23-8-1973 and the learned District Judge fell into a manifest error of law in holding to the contrary. 17. The question which next arises for consideration is as to the effect of the defendant's sending the amount of Rs. 370.70 by money order to the plaintiff on 23-8-1973. In Indrasani v. Din Ali reported in 1968 Allahabad Weekly Report page 167 a Full Bench of this court has held (per majority) that where a tenant remits rent by money order and the amount remitted covers rent for a particular month and the landlord refuses to accept the same, the tenant cannot be said to be in arrears in respect of that month within the meaning of section 3(l)(a) of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act. It was further observed that the words "to pay" occurring in section 3(l)(a) of the aforesaid Act must, in the context, be held integrally to include the words "or to tender." The dictum fully applies to the present case. It is now settled law that where a money order reaches the landlord at his usual address but the same is returned undelivered on the ground that the addressee was "not met," the tender would still be a valid tender (See 1962 Allahabad Law Journal 1146 and A I.R. 1974 Allahabad 366). In A.I.R. 1974 Allahabad 366 (supra) a Full Bench of this Court hold that the mere sending of money by money order well within time would be a sufficient compliance and it would amount to a valid tender of the rent. Following these decisions, I hold that the defendant would be deemed to have tendered 1 the sum of Rs. 370.70 P to the plaintiff on or about 23-8-1973 and that the defendant could not be treated to have been in arrears of rent on the date of the subsequent notice dated 22-9-1973 in so far as the amount of rent for the period covered by the remittance of Rs. 370.70 was concerned. Calculating the rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month, as held by the Revisional court the rent for a period of nine months due on the date of the notice dated 22-9-1973 (upon which this suit is founded), worked out to Rs. 405/-. 370.70 was concerned. Calculating the rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month, as held by the Revisional court the rent for a period of nine months due on the date of the notice dated 22-9-1973 (upon which this suit is founded), worked out to Rs. 405/-. To this amount, one has to add the water tax for the period which works out to Rs. 56.70. The total amount due to the plaintiff on the date of the notice dated 22-9-1973 thus worked out to Rs. 461.70. 18. Even if, therefore, we exclude the sum of Rs. 90/- claimed by the defendant as liable to be adjusted on account of repairs and white washing, the defendant was still not in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months on the date of the notice dated 22-9-1973, taking into consideration the aforesaid sum of Rs. 370.70. The petitioners were, therefore, not defaulters within the meaning of the relevant law. 19. I however, find that the conclusion of the learned District Judge that the defendant was not entitled to claim any deduction on account of sums of the money spent over repairs is manifestly unsustainable in law. The trial court had disposed of the issue on the short ground that court fee having not been paid by the defendant over this amount, he was not entitled to claim any adjustments therefor. It is obvious that no court fee was payable on this amount. Indeed, the learned counsel for the respondents did not seriously dispute the position that on a mere adjustment claimed by the defendant in regard to this amount, no court fee was payable. 20. If, therefore, the learned District Judge was inclined to enter into this question of fact, he should have remanded the case to the trial court, according to the decision of this court reported in 1979 Allahabad Weekly Cases 746 (supra). Even on merits, the finding of the learned District Judge appears to be unsatisfactory. Each and every tingle ingredient of section 28 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 had been fully complied with. A notice as contemplated under that section had been given by the defendant. The notice fully complies with the requirements of section 28. Coupled with that was the statement of the defendant. Each and every tingle ingredient of section 28 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 had been fully complied with. A notice as contemplated under that section had been given by the defendant. The notice fully complies with the requirements of section 28. Coupled with that was the statement of the defendant. In this state of things the defendant was clearly entitled to claim deductions on account of the sums spent by him over the repairs and white washing under section 28, though only in the sum of Rs. 45/- and not Ra. 90/-, as the law then stood. If we take into account this sum of Rs. 45/-, it would be found that the defendant was in arrears of rent on the date of the notice of merely one month or so. 21. In any case, as already observed even if we exclude the above amount of Rs. 45/- from consideration, in view of my finding that the petitioner would be deemed to have duly tendered the aforesaid amount of Rs. 370.70 P before the receipt of the notice dated 22-9-1973, he could not be said to have been in arrears for more than four months on the date of the said notice. 22. Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the finding of the trial court that the landlord had lawfully enhanced the rent from Rs. 45/- per month to Rs. 56.25 per month was correct and the learned District Judge fell into a manifest error of law in holding otherwise. He, therefore, submitted that the arrears for rent due on the date of the notice should be calculated at the rate of Rs. 56.25 P and not Rs. 45/- I do not agree. The learned District Judge had recorded a clear finding against the plaintiff- respondent on this issue and he has decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- per month (to which a sum of Rs. 6. 30 has been added as water tax) and not Rs. 56.25 P. The plaintiff- respondent submitted to that decree. He is, therefore, barred from contending that the rate of rent was Rs. 56.25 and not Rs. 45/- per month (to which a sum of Rs. 6. 30 has been added as water tax) and not Rs. 56.25 P. The plaintiff- respondent submitted to that decree. He is, therefore, barred from contending that the rate of rent was Rs. 56.25 and not Rs. 45/- Even if we assume that the rate of rent was Rs 56.25 as claimed by the plaintiff, the petitioner cannot be said to have been in arrears for more than four months on the date of the notice, taking into account the sum of Rs. 370.70 sent by the petitioner by money order on 23rd of August, 1973. 23. I may now briefly deal with the cases cited by learned counsel for the respondent. The first case cited was reported In A.I.R. 1964 Allahabad 192. In this case, it was held that in order to save eviction, the tenant must pay the arrears of rent demanded under section 3(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 and that a mere unsuccessful attempt to send the arrears of rent demanded, through money order could not be sufficient compliance. It is not necessary to make any comments on this case as it has been expressly over-ruled by the Full Bench reported in 1968 Allahabad Weekly Reporter 167 (supra). 24. The next case cited is reported in 1965 Allahabad Law Journal 249. In this case, it has been observed that if in response to a notice of demand sent by a landlord under section 3(P(a), the tenant pays or tenders a lessor amount than is due to the landlord, the latter would be entitled to refuse to accept the amount tendered by the tenant. This decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the notice of demand upon which the suit is founded is the one dated 22-9-1973. The sum of Rs. 370.70 was, however, sent in response to the earlier notice dated 3-8-1973. The landlord did not base his suit on the earlier notice dated 3-8-1973. While, therefore. In the present case, the notice of demand upon which the suit is founded is the one dated 22-9-1973. The sum of Rs. 370.70 was, however, sent in response to the earlier notice dated 3-8-1973. The landlord did not base his suit on the earlier notice dated 3-8-1973. While, therefore. I agree that if in response to a notice of demand, the tenant does not send the full amount demanded and found due, the tenant would be rendered liable for eviction if he sends a shorter amount, but where, as here, before receipt of the notice of demand under section 3(1)(a), the tenant tenders an amount, which may not be the full amount due, the tender would be perfectly valid with regard to the period for which the arrears of rent are sent in view of the dictum of the Full Bench in the case of Mst. Indrasan v. Din All (supra). 25. The next and the last case cited by counsel for the respondent is reported in Dr. O. P. Bhanti v. Ram Nagina Misra 1977 All. L.R. 364. In this case, it has been ruled that a deposit made under section 7-C of the aforesaid Act by a tenant cannot be taken into account if the amount deposited is less than the amount due on that date. This case is clearly distinguishable. that case was primarily concerned with the validity of deposits made under section 7-C. The facts of this case are materially different from the case in hand. 26. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are quashed. The suit of the plaintiff respondent for the ejectment of the petitioner is dismissed. The suit is however, decreed for recovery of Rs. 489.25 P as arrears of rent, upto date of the suit as well as for recovery of pendents lite rent (inclusive of water tax) at the rate of Rs. 51.30 P per month. The parties shall bear their own costs-throughout.