N. D. V. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is preferred against the order dated 1-6-1987 passed by the vii additional small causes judge, Bangalore city in S. C. No. 2514 of 1985. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, briefly stated, are as under: ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF - respondent filed a suit against the instant petitioner-defendant praying for a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- the same being the advance paid by him to the defendant at the time of his entry in the petition premises as a lessee. It was the case of the plaintiff that he was a tenant of the defendant for the period from 1-11-1979 to 31-1-1984. According to him, he was paying a rent of Rs. 600/- p. m. from 1-11-1979 to 31-1-1982 and thereafter, defendant gave him one more room which was constructed by him. According to him, he paid different amounts as detailed in the plaint in all amounting to Rs. 43,200/ -. Plaintiff ceased to be a tenant from 1-2-1984. He demanded the amount of Rs. 5,000/- paid by him as advance at the time of his entry. He also demanded the excess rent said to have been paid by him to the defendant. Defendant promised to pay the amount and in fact, paid Rs. 200/- and Rs. 100/- in cash and also supplied milk worth Rs. 1,000/- from moti mahal hotel of which defendant is the owner. Having regard to the same, plaintiff restricted his claim only to the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which he had paid by w,ay of advance to the defendant when he entered petition premises as a lessee. On these allegations, plaintiff prayed for a decree in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- together with interest and costs. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT who is the instant revision petitioner resisted the suit of the plaintiff. While it is admitted by him that plaintiff was inducted in the suit premises on 1-11-1979, defendant denied the allegation made by the plaintiff that he ceased to be a tenant after 31-1-1984. Defendant asserted that plaintiff continued to be a tenant till 28-4-1984. According to defendant, the rent towards the suit premises was rs. 600/- p. m. initially; but subsequently plaintiff took one more room and rent was enhanced to Rs. Defendant asserted that plaintiff continued to be a tenant till 28-4-1984. According to defendant, the rent towards the suit premises was rs. 600/- p. m. initially; but subsequently plaintiff took one more room and rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- p. m. from 1-11-1981 and the same rent continued til 31-12-1982 and from 1-1-1983 rate of rent was further enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- p. m. by mutual consent, till the plaintiff vacated the premises on 28-4-1984. According to the defendant, the rent due from the plaintiff for the period from 1-11-1979 to 28-4-1984 was Rs. 51,6007- and plaintiff had paid a total sum of Rs. 43,200/- and that therefore, after deducting the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was made over by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of advance an amount ofrs. 3,400/- was still due from the plaintiff. It was also averred by the defendant that on 8-1-1985 plaintiff issued a cheque for Rs. 1,000/- towards part payment of the arrears still due from him; but the cheque was dishonoured when it was presented to the bank. The allegation made by the plaintiff that the said cheque was given to the defendant towards the supply of milk of moti mahal hotel of which defendant is the owner. It was asserted by the defendant that moti mahal hotel was not engaged in milk vending business. Defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit. ( 4 ) THE lower court, examined plaintiff kashinath rao pati;. Ex. P-1 to p-7 were marked for the plaintiff. Defendant n. Narayana reddy examined himself. No documents were marked for the defendant. The lower court on a consideration of the evidence on record and for the reasons reflected in its judgment dated 1-6-1987 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. The j udgment and decree of the lower court arc challenged in this revision petition. ( 5 ) 1 have heard Sri h. r. venkataramanaiah, learned Advocate arguing the case for Smt. B. k. subbalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri kashinath rao patil respondent in person who incidentally is also an advocate. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is as to whether the order questioned in revision islegal and proper? ( 5 ) 1 have heard Sri h. r. venkataramanaiah, learned Advocate arguing the case for Smt. B. k. subbalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri kashinath rao patil respondent in person who incidentally is also an advocate. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is as to whether the order questioned in revision islegal and proper? ( 7 ) IT is seen that the lower court on a consideration of the evidence on recordreached a conclusion that the rent for the premises was initially Rs. 600/- p. m. and that the same was enhanced to Rs. 1,0007- p. m. from 1-1-1981. In otherwords, the contention raised by the defendant that the rent was from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1,0007- p. m. from 1-1-1981 was accepted by the lower court. This can be seen from para 5 of its judgment. However, the lower court did not accept the pica of the defendant that the rent was further increased to Rs. 1200/- p. m. from 1-1-1983 as can be seen from para 8 of its judgment. ( 8 ) IT is further seen that the lower court has reached a conclusion that plaintiff did not continue as a tenant in the suit premises after 31-1-1984. This can be seen from its finding at para 8 of its judgment. ( 9 ) THE lower court is shown to have based its conclusion with reference to the rate of rent of the suit premises from time to time on preponderance of probabilities. The fact that the rent was paid in the multiple of Rs. 1,0007- p. m. for the relevant period did weigh with the lower court in reaching its conclusion. Further, the trial court has also taken into consideration one or two other aspects which arc dealt with by it in its judgment in this connection. ( 10 ) THE finding of the lower court with reference to the rate of rent, in myopinion, cannot be found fault with. 1 am not inclined to agree with Sri h. r. venkataramanaiah that the total amount payable for the period during which the defendant was a tenant would work out at Rs. 51,600/-, for reasons more than one. In the first place, as pointed out earlier, the trial court has arrived at its conclusion with reference to the rate of rent in the context of crucible of probabilities. 51,600/-, for reasons more than one. In the first place, as pointed out earlier, the trial court has arrived at its conclusion with reference to the rate of rent in the context of crucible of probabilities. In this connection, it is required to be noted that under Section 47 of the karnataka Rent Control Act every landlord shall give a written receipt to the tenant for any amount at the lime when such amount is received by him in respect of any premises in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. Under Rule 11 of the Karnataka rent control rules, a receipt to be given for the amount of rent received in respect of any premises shall be in form vii and a duplicate is required to be retained by him. The said form is as under: