Judgment : D. C. Srivastava, J. 1. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1995 of Sri R. P. Shukla VIIIth Additional District Judge Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-revisionist and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. 2. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length at the time of admission of this revision. Affidavit, counter affidavit, supplementary affidavits have been filed. The revision can be finally disposed of at the admission stage without calling for the record of the trial Court. The brief allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff being owner landlord of the disputed shop, let it out to the defendant revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 3000. In addition to this Rs. 80 per month were payable as water tax from the tenant revisionist. Rent from 1-9-1990 to 31-3-1991 amounting to Rs. 21. 000/- be sides water tax amounting to Rs. 560 fell due from the defendant revisionist. The notice of demand of eviction was served which was not complied, hence suit for eviction was filed. 3. The defendant revisionist contested the suit on the ground that the agreed rent was Rs. 1000/- per month and not Rs. 3007- per month and the water tax was also included in this rent of Rs. 1000/- p. m. The payment of rent and water tax was made by the defendant-Tenant. A controversy was also raised whether the shop was/ constructed in the year 1971. The validity of notice was also challenged. 4. The trial Court found that the disputed shop was constructed in/the year 1971. It further found that the notice was not invalid. Likewise, it $8\tfid that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 3,000 p. m. and that the defendant revisionist was liable to pay water tax @ 80 p. m. in addition to agreed rent. It further found that rent and water tax were due from the defendant revisionist. Accordingly the suit was decreed. In this revision the findings of the trial Court regarding the year of construction of the disputed shop, validity of notice of eviction, rate of rent and water tax were not challenged, nor it was challenged that the revisionist is not liable to pay water tax in addition to agreed rate of rent. Accordingly the suit was decreed. In this revision the findings of the trial Court regarding the year of construction of the disputed shop, validity of notice of eviction, rate of rent and water tax were not challenged, nor it was challenged that the revisionist is not liable to pay water tax in addition to agreed rate of rent. 5. The only point pressed in this revision was that the contract of tenancy is invalid and is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act because it was against public policy and illegal. It was vehemently argued that since there was evidence on record that it was agreed that Rs. 1,000 were to be paid through cheque and the remaining amount of Rs/2,000 in Cash and the purpose of this modified agreement was to evade payment of income tax hence the said agreement is invalid and void. Consequently, on the basis of void agreement of tenancy no relief can be granted to the landlord. Certain cases were referred in support of this contention by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Before appreciating case-law cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist certain facts have to be taken into consideration. 6. It is not in dispute that the tenancy was settled orally on 1-7-83 and no written rent note or lease deed was executed. It is established that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 3,000/- p. m. and the finding of the court below on the rate of rent being based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record cannot be disturbed in this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Sub sequently, in October 1983, there was some modification in the agreement regarding mode of payment of rent. The modified agreement was that Rs. 1000/- were to be paid by cheque and Rs. 2000/- by cash. IT was argued that this agreement has rendered the contract of tenancy invalid. IT may, however, be mentioned that in the written statement whose copy has been filed in this revision alongwith affidavit, there is no plea that the tennacy was invalid. Unless his plea was raised in the written statement and was argued before the lower court, it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this revision. IT may, however, be mentioned that in the written statement whose copy has been filed in this revision alongwith affidavit, there is no plea that the tennacy was invalid. Unless his plea was raised in the written statement and was argued before the lower court, it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this revision. IT is not a pure question of law which can be permitted to be raised in this revision. However, since learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on this plea, it is just and proper to answer this argument in this revision. As observed earlier, the tenancy was created under oral agreement on 1-7-1983. At that time, there was no agreement that Rs. 1000/- will be paid through cheque and Rs. 2000 in cash. If there was subsequent modification in October, 1983 regarding mode of payment of rent, it can hardly be said that the initial agreement of tenancy entered in July, 1983 would be rendered invalid. There may be various modes of payment and acceptance of rent. The landlord and tenant may agree to pay and accept rent by money order, in cash, by cheque or partly in cash and partly by cheque. If such mode of payment is agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, it will not render the contract of tenancy per se invalid or void. The landlord and tenant may subsequently agree to modify the mode of payment. Such subsequent agreement modifying the mode of payment will also not render initial agreement or contract of tenancy invalid or void. Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act on these facts, therefore, cannot safely be applied in the instant case. 7. Even if it is assumed that the purpose of modification of agreement for payment of rent, namely, payment of Rs. 1000/- by cheque and Rs. 2000 by cash was to evade payment of income tax it could hardly be said that the contract of tenancy would be rendered invalid or void. There can be instances where the landlord may accept rent and may not issue receipt and the amount not shown in his income tax return as income from rent of his building. In that case it cannot be said that the contract of tenancy itself is rendered invalid. There can be instances where the landlord may accept rent and may not issue receipt and the amount not shown in his income tax return as income from rent of his building. In that case it cannot be said that the contract of tenancy itself is rendered invalid. Similarly, there may be cases where the landlord issues receipts and accepts rent from the tenant but he does not show the same in his income tax return. This is also not a ground to invalidate the contract of tenancy. There are provisions in the Income Tax Act that if an assessee files wrong return and conceals his total income, he may be proceeded with under the said Act effectively. Prima facie there seems to be no force in the contention that the modification regarding mode of payment of rent has rendered the contract of tenancy invalid and is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. 8. Coming to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the first case is Nootan Kumar v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda, 1993 (2) ARC 204. In this case, facts were altogether different and it was held that where there was an agreement involving transaction of either letting by landlord or occupation by any person of any building, except in pursuance of an order of allotment or release being prohibited by law it has to be treated to have been invalidated by statute, rendering the agreement void and unenforceable in law. In this case it was not laid down that if there is subsequent modification of agreement only regarding mode of payment of rent, the agreement or contract of tenancy is rendered invalid by statute and becomes unenforceable in law. The revisionist, therefore, cannot get any benefit from this pronouncement. The second case is of Ram Sewak v. Ram Charan, AIR 1982 All 177 . In this case there was agreement between the partners of a business to conceal profit to evade tax. It was held that such agreement between partners is invalid and not enforceable because it was meant for evading payment of tax. This case is also distin guishable on facts. In this case there was agreement between the partners of a business to conceal profit to evade tax. It was held that such agreement between partners is invalid and not enforceable because it was meant for evading payment of tax. This case is also distin guishable on facts. In the case before me, there is no clinching evidence nor there any mention in the judgment of the trial Court that the landlord has not paid income tax on the total rental income or has concealed the same under his return of income. Consequently, this case also cannot be applied to the facts of the ease before me. 9. The third and the last case is of Nand Kishore Bansal v. Ram Kali Devi, 1983 ALR 708. This case is also distinguishable on facts. It was a case of purchase of Hundi. It was laid down that the court would be upholding the law and public policy by refusing to enforce the Hundi, in case it finds that the transaction of purchase of it was void because the consideration paid therefor was forbidden by law or of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat 'he provisions of the Income Tax Act, or was opposed to public policy. In this case the consideration said to have been paid for purchase of Hundi was not entered in the account books in order to evade income tax. It was on these facts held that it can be said that such agreement cannot be enforced. This case is also distinguishable on the ground that there is no evidence in the case before me that the rental income was not shown in the income tax return of the landlord. Simply because there was suggestion that by such modification of agreement regarding the mode of payment, the landlord and tenant both will be benefited, it does not mean that there was transaction resulting in evasion of income tax. Neither the tenant can evade payment of income tax nor the landlord in this manner. There is no evidence of evasion of income tax. It may also be mentioned that even in the municipal record there is entry that the disputed shop was assessed at Rs. 800 p. m. and water tax was worked out on this amount @ 10/- to be Rs. 80 only. There is no evidence of evasion of income tax. It may also be mentioned that even in the municipal record there is entry that the disputed shop was assessed at Rs. 800 p. m. and water tax was worked out on this amount @ 10/- to be Rs. 80 only. In this way such entry in the municipal record also does not give any indication of evasion of tax. No other point was pressed before me. It can be concluded that neither initial contract of tenancy was invalid or void nor it was rendered invalid or void because of subsequent agreement modifying the agreement regarding mode of payment of rent. The contract of tenancy is, therefore, enforceable and on this ground the decree for eviction or arrears of rent etc. and water tax cannot be reversed. The revision has no merit and liable to fail. 10. The revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision dismissed.