JUDGMENT U.C Srivastava. J. 1. This revision application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the order passed by, the District Judge, dismissing the landlord's suit for ejectment and arrears of rent, on the small cause side. The landlordapplicant filed suit against the opposite party no. 1 impleading opposite party no. 2, alleging that opposite party no I has sublet the premises to opposite party no. 2 and, further, claimed ejectment on the ground that the opposite party no. I was in arrears of rent. The District Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the applicant has failed to prove that the opposite party no. 2 who was own brother of the opposite party no. I was subtenant and was in possession of the premises, and on the point of default also a finding was recorded against the applicant. Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that from the own statement, i.e. admission of the opposite party no. 1 itself, it was proved that the opposite party no. 2, who is own brother of the opposite party no. 1, is the subtenant. Certified copy of the statement of the opposite party no. 1 has been produced before me. It seems that there is some mistake in transcription of the statement or some confusion. In the last sentence it was stated that his brother was subtenant. The entire statement was read over and from the beginning the opposite party no. 1 has been denying that his brother was subtenant. He stated that sometime when he is out, opposite party no. 2 sits in his restaurant and he, at times, sits in the shop of opposite party no. 2, whenever he is out. The last sentence pointed out by the learned counsel cannot be taken to be an admission. An admission should be clear and unequivocal and though the same is not conclusive the same shifts the onus on the maker, on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the presumption is rebutted the fact.admitted must be taken to be established. (Thiru John v. Subramhamanyan AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1724). There was no clear and unequivocal admission, nor it appears that he ever intended to admit the same. (Thiru John v. Subramhamanyan AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1724). There was no clear and unequivocal admission, nor it appears that he ever intended to admit the same. The District Judge has rightly pointed out that there is no evidence from the side of the applicant to prove that the opposite party no. 2 was subtenant of his own brother and was in exclusive possession of the building. It was not even proved that restaurant business was, in fact, being carried on by opposite party no. 2 and not by opposite party no. 1. 2. So far as the default is concerned, the District Judge noticed that when the applicant refused to accept the rent, the opposite party no. 1 deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Even otherwise on the first date the entire amount of rent together with cost of the suit alongwith lawyer's fee and interest calculated at the rate of 9 percent was deposited which, thus, saves the opposite party no. 1 from ejectment. The judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, at no score, can be said to be not in accordance with law. No error of law has been committed, as such, revision application deserves to be dismissed. 3. The revision application is dismissed with costs. (revision dismissed)