V. V. BEDARKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is against the decree of both the Courts below for eviction of the suit premises passed against the present petitioner (original defendant ). The premises consist of one tenement House no TDX-46 situated at Adipur-Kutch. This property was purchased by opponent-plaintiff Bai Ladhibai Punjaram from one Lalchand Santdas in June 1962 as per Ex. 54. The present petitioner was a tenant in the said premises and therefore he automatically became the tenant of the present opponent. Though the present opponent became the landlady since 1967 the dispute was raised by issuing notice Ex. 51 dated 28 that the petitionertenant was in arrears of rent from 1-5-1970 to 30-9-1972 and therefore notice was given demanding the arrears of rent and also termination of the tenancy. This notice was admittedly received by the present petitioner on 6-11-1972 as per Ex. 53. It is an admitted position that notice was not replied to and no dispute about the standard rent nor paid up rent was raised within one month of the receipt of the said notice. ( 2 ) IN the trial Court the landlady (present opponent) who is really an illiterate rustic woman could not depose about all the facts but her husband was examined and he deposed to about the facts of non-payment of rent. He was extensively cross-examined. It was his case that the petitioner-tenant had not paid rent after 1-5-1970 meaning thereby he practically admitted that upto 30-4-1970 rent was paid. Questions were put to him whether he was maintaining receipt book according to the provisions of law and whether he was issuing receipts for the rent received. Though he stated that he was issuing receipts be could not produce the counter-foils of the receipts or the accounts to show what rent he had received and what he had not received. But the fact remains that on oral testimony on oath he specifically deposed that rent from 1-5-1970 was not received. ( 3 ) PROBABLY being over confident of his case the petitioner-tenant was not put into the witness-box thinking that because the landlady has not produced the counter-foils of receipts and accounts she cannot prove the case about the non-payment of rent. ( 3 ) PROBABLY being over confident of his case the petitioner-tenant was not put into the witness-box thinking that because the landlady has not produced the counter-foils of receipts and accounts she cannot prove the case about the non-payment of rent. Therefore the petitioner -tenant was not put into the witness-box and it was stated that as the case of the opponent-landlady was weak she could not succeed and therefore non-examination of the petitioner-tenant would not be material for dismissing the suit of the opponent-plaintiff. ( 4 ) THIS argument of the petitioner-defendant was negatived by the learned trial Judge as well as the learned Appellate Judge. In fact though receipts are not produced evidence of the landladys husband clearly shows that rent was received upto 30-4-1970. If the Landlady wanted to come out with a false case her husband could have stated that no rent was paid because no receipts were issued and no accounts were maintained. But the evidence of the landladys husband clearly shows that rent was received upto 30-4-1970 and for that there are no receipts also. Now if the petitioner-tenants case is that he had paid the rent he could have stepped into the witness-box and stated on oath that he had paid the rent even after 1-5-1970 and then the question would arise whether the oral testimony of the husband of the landlady should be believed. ( 5 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that in Courts questions arise quite often on the strength of oral as well as documentary evidence. If there is no documentary evidence then Court will have to consider and weigh the oral evidence. In the instant case on behalf of the landlady her husband was examined and he stated on oath that the petitioner did not pay any rent after 1-5-1970. The petitioner-tenant did not enter into the witnessbox to depose on oath that he had paid rent after 1-5-1970. If this would have been the evidence then in absence of receipts or accounts from the landlady it would have been open for the Court to come to the conclusion that it would believe the case of the tenant because the landlady had not followed the statutory requirements. If this would have been the evidence then in absence of receipts or accounts from the landlady it would have been open for the Court to come to the conclusion that it would believe the case of the tenant because the landlady had not followed the statutory requirements. I am observing this as statutory requirement because the learned appellate Judge has committed an error by making some observations ( 6 ) GROUND was advanced before the learned appellate Judge that the landlady had not maintained any books of account nor the counter-foils of the receipts issued on blank papers. But in order to meet with this argument the learned appellate Judge on page 15 as well as on page 23 of his judgment (certified copy of the judgment as the paragraphs are not numbered) observed that there is no rule that the plaintiff (landlady) is required to keep the counter-foils or books of accounts. It was also observed that it is not mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to maintain books of account or to keep the counter-foils. I must say that these observations of the learned Judge are not proper. ( 7 ) UNDER sec. 26 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) an obligation has been cast on the landlord to give a written receipt in writing. This sec. 26 of the Act reads as under:"26 Every landlord shall give a written receipt for any amount at the time when such amount is received by him in respect of any premises in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Any landlord or person who fails to give a written receipt for any amount received by him in respect of any premises shall on conviction. be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees". This clearly postulates that a landlord has to give receipt in writing in the form and in the manner as may be prescribed. This form and manner have been prescribed by rule 3 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which provides that a receipt given under sec. This clearly postulates that a landlord has to give receipt in writing in the form and in the manner as may be prescribed. This form and manner have been prescribed by rule 3 of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which provides that a receipt given under sec. 26 of the Act for the amount of rent received in respect of any premises shall be in Form I and that Form I provides for Rent Receipt and Counterfoil including the signature of the person receiving the amount and also of the tenant. It is therefore very clear that it is obligatory or rather mandatory for the landlord to issue receipts under sec. 26 of the Act Hence the learned appellate Judge was not justified in observing that there is no rule that the plaintiff is required to keep the counter-foils. But that would not take out the case of the landlady entirely only because she has not maintained the counter-foils and books of account as in that case it is open for the petitioner-tenant to come and show the receipts whatever he had with him if any receipts were passed. If not then it was open to him to depose on oath that he had paid the rent. But as there was only the evidence of the husband of the landlady that rent from 1-5-1970 was not paid it was open for the Court to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-landlady has proved that the amount of rent was not paid and also observe that absence of receipts or accounts would not be of material importance in view of the fact that there is no evidence led by the petitioner-tenant. This much would have been proper. But the learned appellate Judge went wrong in going further and saying that there is no rule that the receipt and counter-foil of receipts should be maintained. This observation has been made by the learned appellate Judge in ignorance. of the provisions of sec 26 of the Act and rule 3 of the Rules. This much would have been proper. But the learned appellate Judge went wrong in going further and saying that there is no rule that the receipt and counter-foil of receipts should be maintained. This observation has been made by the learned appellate Judge in ignorance. of the provisions of sec 26 of the Act and rule 3 of the Rules. ( 8 ) THIS however does not affect the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Judge because that can be arrived at in view of the fact that there is only one evidence on oath proving that the tenant has not paid the rent from 1-5-1970 and there is no evidence to the contrary to disprove it because the petitioner-tenant has not evidence into the witness-box. Realising this difficulty Mr. D. D. Vyas learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that he did not want to press the petition very much but requested the Court that in these days of hardship to get accommodation sufficient time should be given to the petitioner to vacate. Mr. R. A. Mehta learned Advocate for the opponent-landlady agreed to give reasonable time and ultimately left it to the discretion of the Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 9 ) IN the result the revision petition is dismissed. The petitionertenant is given time upto 30-6-1985 to vacate and hand-over peaceful possession of the suit premises to the opponent-landlady and during this period go on paying mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 15. 00 per month regularly. For this the petitioner-tenant shall give an undertaking in the lower Court to the effect that he shall hand-over vacant and peaceful possession ion to the opponent-landlady on or before 1-7-1985 and also declare that he is the only tenant and nobody else has the tenancy claim over the suit premises and that he or his heirs are liable to hand-over the possession on that particular date. The undertaking should be given in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from to-day. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs in this petition. Application dismissed. .