ORDER A.N. Dikshita, J. - Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1989 passed by Sri A.K. Agarwal, VIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, decreeing the S.C.C. Suit No. 132 of 1984 for arrears of rent and ejectment the defendant has filed the instant revision. 2. The facts in a narrow campus are that the plaintiff opp. party (hereinafter called the opp. party) filed a suit against the defendant-applicant (hereinafter called as the applicant) on the ground of default in the payment of rent and consequent eviction of the applicant. The suit was contested by the applicant. 3. It may be mentioned that as per plaint allegations, earlier one Bhairo Prasad, and as also emerging from the record of the case, was a tenant of the alleged shop on monthly rental of Rs. 25/-, as per the plaint allegations. Consequent to his vacating the shop it was demolished and reconstructed in 1983 where after the applicant was admitted to the tenancy at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. It has been averred by the opp. party that the applicant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1-8-83 to 15-11-84, besides water tax 12% and drainage tax @ 3%. The applicant denied the plaint allegations and alleged that he is not the tenant of the opp. party and there exist no relationship of landlord and tenant. It was alleged that the tenant of the impugned shop is Bhairo Prasad. The applicant further challenged that no notice was ever served on him. On the basis of the material on record and appraisal of the evidence so adduced by the parties the suit was decreed for arrears of rent and for the ejectment besides the costs of the suit, thus giving rise to this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the parties : Sri Ramendra Asthana for the applicant and Sri K.N. Tripathi appearing for the opp. party, jointly submitted on 12-5-89 that instead of disposing the stay matter the revision be disposed of finally at the admission stage by this Court, which is being accordingly done. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Ramendra Asthana has very strenuously submitted that the trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit and the judgment of the Court below is not according to law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri Ramendra Asthana has very strenuously submitted that the trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit and the judgment of the Court below is not according to law. It has been submitted that the trial Court illegally erred in holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the opp. party and the applicant. It is very difficult to agree to such a submission and I find no merit in it. On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties it is very clearly spelt out that the applicant is the tenant of the impugned shop. It has been found by the Court below that after Bhairo Prasad, real brother of the applicant vacated the shop and handed over its possession, it was demolished and reconstructed, whereafter the applicant was inducted as a tenant. Ironically, Bhairo Prasad, brother of the applicant was produced as D.W. 2, did not deny this fact and rather supported the averments of the opp. party. Suffice it to say that such findings in this regard recorded by the Court below are essentially findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court which may justify interference with those findings. I am fortified in my view by a decision in, "Dharampal Tyagi' v. Anil Kumar", (1986) 2 All Rent Cas 121: (1986 All U 1047). 6. Learned counsel for the applicant then submitted that there was no default in the payment of rent. The submission is ill-merited. Even if there is no default in the payment of rent, the construction is of the year 1983 and it is not necessary to seek refuge to provisions of S. 20(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972 as amended up-to-date. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant then lastly submitted that the notice is invalid and illegal. Such a submission is again very fallacious when the applicant himself denies the receipt of the notice. However, the Court below has found that the notice has been served and it has based his conclusions in the light of the judgment in the case, "Ramnath v. Angan", (1984) 2 All Rent Cas 290. Learned counsel for the opp. Such a submission is again very fallacious when the applicant himself denies the receipt of the notice. However, the Court below has found that the notice has been served and it has based his conclusions in the light of the judgment in the case, "Ramnath v. Angan", (1984) 2 All Rent Cas 290. Learned counsel for the opp. party Sri K.N. Tripathi has submitted that the judgment and order is according to law and it requires no interference. It is settled view that the evidence cannot be reappraised and I am in agreement with the submissions made by Sri K.N. Tripathi that it is not a case fit for interference. 8. In the result the revision has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.