Judgement This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, and is directed against the judgement and order dated 18-08-2004 passed by Shri Alok Kumar Verma, learned Judge Small Causes Court / Add!. District Judge / 3rd Fast Track Court, Haridwar, whereby he has decreed the S.C.C. Suit No. 05 of 1998 for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment of the defendant-revisionist. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the revisionist-defendant before the trial court for ejectment and arrears of rent on the ground that the plaintiffs are the landlords of the premises in suit, which in family partition had gone in the share of plaintiff NO.2 since May 1993. Plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant-revisionist was their tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month apart from Rs. 10/- per month towards water charges. It is also pleaded that since Municipal Board, Haridwar assessed the house tax only in 1987, as such provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question. It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint that defendant paid rent only up to 09-03-1985, and stopped payment thereafter. Therefore, after terminating the tenancy by serving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the suit was filed before Judge, Small Causes Court,. Haridwar. The defendant-revisionist contested the suit but admitted that the plaintiff NO.2 is the landlord since May 1993 and the defendant is his tenant in premises in question. However, the defendant has denied alleged default in payment of rent and alleged that he had paid the rent right up to April 1998. In the written statement, it is also denied if the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and it is alleged that the plaintiffs wanted to enhance the rent to which defendant did not agree and his tenancy does not stand terminated as alleged by the plaintiffs. 3. Learned trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and heard them before giving its findings on five Points of Determination before it. 3. Learned trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and heard them before giving its findings on five Points of Determination before it. On the Point of Determination NO.2 which related to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, learned Judge, Small Causes Court gave finding in favour of the defendant but in rest of the Points of Determination, the findings went in favour of the plaintiffs. Since no revision is filed on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs, finding as to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 can be said to be final. Now, this Court has to see if the learned trial court has erred in law coming to the conclusion that the defendant has committed any default in payment of rent and in passing the decree for arrears of rent and ejectment. 4. Shri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant drew my attention to para 2 of the additional pleas contained in the written statement filed before the trial court and submitted that since the defendant has admitted that after May 1993, it was admittedly the plaintiff NO.2, who was the landlord, as such since plaintiff No. 2 has not come into the witness box to state if the rent was not paid to him, therefore, the learned trial court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the rent has not been paid by the defendant. I see little substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist for the reason that on behalf of both the plaintiffs, P.W.1 - Ravindra Kumar Verma, who is real brother of the plaintiff NO.2, has stated on oath that the defendant has not paid the rent to the plaintiffs. It is settled principle of law that once both the parties adduce their evidence on a point, the question of burden of proof gets diluted. I have perused the statement of D.W. 1, Shyam Sunder (Defendant revisionist) recorded by the trial court. In his cross examination the defendant as D.W.1 has categorically stated D.W. 1 has further stated in his cross-examination as under: In view of the above submission of the D.W.1, Shyam Sunder, it cannot be said if the learned trial court has erred in law by accepting the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent. 5. 5. From the perusal of the lower court record, it is also clear that on 02-11-1998, the defendant made an application 14-C showing intention to deposit the claimed rent alongwith 9% interest and costs to seek protection under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but the said application appears to have been not pressed by the defendant himself on 04-02-1999. As such, the learned trial court had no option but to decree the suit as prayed by the plaintiffs as the default of the payment in rent was found established. As far as notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is concerned, even if U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is found to be applicable, the said notice read with Section 20(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is a valid notice. The same view has been expressed by Allahabad High Court in Abdu/ Rashid and another V. District Judge, Almora and another 2001 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases pg. 288. 6. On behalf of the revisionist my attention was drawn to the principle of law laid down in Mahendra Pratap Garg V. Smt. Vijai Laxmi Genera/1983 Allahabad Rent Cases pg. 74 and it is argued that the defendant continue to deposit rent under Order XV Ruie 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and has not committed any default in payment of rent before the trial Court in the opinion of this Court, provisions of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that of the Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended in U.P.) are independent provisions. While the former protects the defendant tenant from eviction, the later protects him from his defence being struck of. In the present case, revisionist (defendant) failed to show me if the requirement of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were fulfilled in depositing the claim with interest and costs. As such, he did not get saved from the decree of ejectment. 7. In view of the above discussion, I see no illegality in the impugned judgement and decree dated 18-08-2004 and accordingly the revision is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.