JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri Gopal Narain, counsel for the State and Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mamta Joshi, counsel for the revisionists. 2. By the present civil revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the revisionists have prayed for setting aside the order dated 31st May, 2006 by which the decree for eviction as well payment of arrears within a period of two months have been granted. 3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed being S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2002 Smt. Pramod Mishra Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others stating therein that the plaintiff is the landlord of the premises and the defendant No. 2 - Rajkiya Pramanit Sanstha (Bhikhuk Grah) Bhimgoda Haridwar is the tenant at the rate of Rs. 375 per month and the defendant no. 2 is under the supervision of the State of Uttaranchal. 4. The plaintiff-respondent has stated that the defendant no. 2 - revisionist no. 2 is in arrears of rent from 1st April, 1997 to 31st July, 2003 amounting to Rs. 28,500/- and water and house tax at the rate of Rs. 4,987.50n. Apart from the aforesaid arrears of rent, it was also stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the defendant no. 2 has also made substantial additions and alterations in building by demolishing the railing and has constructed the permanent structure as a result of the same, the windows have been removed and the electric fittings have also been taken out from the premises. The defendant no. 2 has also constructed a latrine illegally by which the entire premises has been disfigured which has also diminished the vale of the building. 5. The defendant no. 2 has also constructed a latrine illegally by which the entire premises has been disfigured which has also diminished the vale of the building. 5. Plaintiff has submitted that a notice was sent on 1st August, 2003 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was duly served on 1st October, 2003 demanding the arrears of rent of the following effect: ß¼v½ ;g fd fMxzh n[ky cgd oknuh cj f[kykQ izfroknhx.k lfnj Qjek;h tkdj oknuh dks fuEof.kZr lEifÙk dk n[ky izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼c½ ;g fd fMxzh fdjk;k vadu 28915@& #ñ 50 iSls o tydj x`gdj 5004@& #ñ 50 iSls dqy 33919@& #ñ 50 iSls oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼l½ ;g fd eqvkotk bLrseky 375@& #ñ oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼n½ ;g fd [kpkZ oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼;½ ;g fd eqvkotk bLrseky nkSjku oknuh dks izfroknhx.k ls rk;se n[ky fnyk;k tkos ftl ij dksVZQhl cjc[r vtjk;s vnk dh tk;sxhAÞ 6. The defendant no.2 has contested the case by filing a written statement. So far as the tenancy is concerned, the same was admitted by the defendant no. 2. However, it was denied that any construction has been raised by the defendant so as to cover the case under Section 20(c) and (g) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 7. Judge Small Cause Courts has framed as many as four points for determination. While deciding the point no. 1, a finding was recorded on the basis of the evidence of the parties that the defendant no. 2 has made substantial additions and alterations in the building. So far as the point no. 4 regarding the arrears of rent is concerned, a finding has been recorded that since 1996, the defendant no. 2 has not paid the rent to the plaintiff and even after the receipt of the notice, the amount was not paid to the plaintiff and hence the decree for eviction was passed against the defendant no. 2. So far as other points with regard to the notice is concerned, a finding was recorded that the proper notice has been sent under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence, I find no fault in sending the notice to the defendant no. 2. 2. So far as other points with regard to the notice is concerned, a finding was recorded that the proper notice has been sent under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence, I find no fault in sending the notice to the defendant no. 2. 8. A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has stated that the defendant has not paid the rent from 01.04.1997 to 31.07.2003. 9. In paragraph 14 of the written statement, it has been stated that the rent was being paid to the husband of the plaintiff. Relevant portion of the written statement is quoted below: ß14- ;g fd okfnuh us Lo;a dks foofnr lEifÙk dh O;fDrxr Hkou Lokfeuh ds :i esa Hkou Lokfeuh O;Dr djrs gq;s okn mijksDr nk;j fd;k x;k gS tcfd okfnuh ds ifr Loñ Jh }kjdk izlkn feJk us mijksDr lEifÙk izfroknhx.k dks U;kl dh vksj ls Lo;a dks mDr U;kl dk izcU/kd U;klh O;Dr djrs gq;s fdjk;s ij mBk;h vkSj Jh }kjdk izlkn feJk us blh gSfl;r ls fdjk;k olwy dj jlhnkr tkjh dhAÞ 10. In the written statement, there is no averment about the payment of the rent. In the written statement, it has been stated that there is no occasion of the payment of the rent. The said averment is quoted below: ßmijksDr nksuksa deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;e vuqlkj vkoklh; in “kklu }kjk LohÑr gS vkSj mijksDr laLFkk ds mDr deZpkjh fooknxzLr lEifÙk dks fdjk;s ij fy;s tkus ds le; ls jgrs pys vk jgs gSaA mijksDr deZpkfj;ksa ls dksbZ fdjk;k ysus dk iz”u gh iSnk ugha gksrkA c;ku okfnuh blds izfrdwy rekerj vlR; ,oa vln~Hkkoh gSAÞ 11. From the evidence on the record, it is evident that rent has been paid for the year, 1988 and 1990. Paper Nos. 27-Ga, 32-Ga, 33-Ga, 34-Ga, 35-Ga and 36-Ga are receipts for the payment of the amount, which show that from time to time amount has been paid and Sri Dwarika Prasad Mishra 3 who issued the receipts. The bill paper No. 82-Ga dated 1st September, 1994 has been sent for the recovery of the amount from March, 1994 to August, 1994 to the extent of Rs. 2250/-. Paper No. 84-Ga shows that for the payment of the amount, the same has been sent to the Nideshak Samaj Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow. The bill paper No. 82-Ga dated 1st September, 1994 has been sent for the recovery of the amount from March, 1994 to August, 1994 to the extent of Rs. 2250/-. Paper No. 84-Ga shows that for the payment of the amount, the same has been sent to the Nideshak Samaj Kalyan, U.P. Lucknow. The same is quoted below: ßizs’kd] v/kh{kd jktdh; izekf.kr laLFkk ¼fHk{kqd x`g½ gfj}kjA lsok esa] funs”kd lekt dY;k.k] mñizñ y[kuÅA i=kad @ld&jkñizñlñ@Hkou&96&97@fnukad ekpZ 97 egksn;] fouez lknj fuosnu gS fd Hkou Lokeh Jherh izeksn feJk iRuh Loñ Jh }kfjdk izlkn feJ }kjk Hkou fdjk;s ds lEcU/k esa ekax dh gS ftls ewy :i esa vkidh lsok esa lknj izsf’kr fd;k tk jgk gSA layXud ;FkksDr Hkonh; v/kh{kd jktdh; izekf.kr laLFkk ¼fHk{kqd x`g½] gfj}kjAÞ 12. Letter dated 6th November, 2003 Paper No. 85-Ga shows that the amount has been directed to be paid. The same is quoted below: ßfo’k;%& Jherh izeksn feJk iRuh Loñ Jh }kfjdk izlkn feJk fuoklh feJk Hkou vij jksM] gfj}kjA egksn;] mijksDr O;ogkjh ds vuqns”kkuqlkj vki }kjk v/kksgLrk{kjh dks izsf’kr uksfVl fnukad 01-08-2003 dks izLrjokj mÙkj izsf’kr gSA Ñi;k vius O;ogkjh dks Hkh voxr djkus dk d’V djsaA izLrj&01% vk[;k dh vko”;drk ugha gSA izLrj&02% Hkou Lokeh dks fu;ekuqlkj ekgokj #ñ 375@& fdjk;k ns; gSA izLrj&03 ls 06 tSlk fd v/kh{kd jktdh; izekf.kr laLFkk ¼fHk{kqd x`g½ gfj}kj }kjk vius mÙkj esa O;Dr fd;k x;k gSA 13. There is no averment on record to justify that any amount has either been paid or deposited in the Court. The documents as referred above have been proved by the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.1. He has deposed as under: ßizekf.kr izfr dj fu/kkZj.k 81 x ntZ gSA bl ij izn”kZ&4 Mkyk x;kA dkxt la[;k 82x@1 izfroknh ls fdjk;k izkIr djus dh QksVks dkih jlhn gS vly izfroknh ds ikl gS tks esjh ekrkth ds Hkou Lokeh ds :i esa izkIr fd;k gSA dkxt la[;k 84x izfroknh la[;k&2 }kjk oknuh dks Hksts i= dh izfr gS ftlesa esjh ekrk th dks Hkou Lokeh ekuk x;kA izfroknh lañ&3 }kjk uksfVl dk vly tokc 85x nkf[ky fd;k gSA dkxt lañ 86x izfroknh lañ&2 }kjk izfroknh lañ&3 dks Hksts x;s i= dh izfr oknuh ds uke gSA 14. So far as substantial alteration and addition in the building is concerned, the same has also been proved by the plaintiff-P.W.1. So far as substantial alteration and addition in the building is concerned, the same has also been proved by the plaintiff-P.W.1. The same is quoted below: ßfHk{kqd x`g esa fHk{kqdksa dks cUn djds j[kk tkrk Fkk vkSj mUgsa ckn esa fy[kkbZ i<+kbZ cqukbZ fl[kk;k tkrk Fkk vkSj mUgsa ogha cUn j[kk tkrk Fkk mudh lqj{kk ds fy;s foHkkx us pkSdhnkj vkfn j[kk Fkk dke vkfn fl[kkus ds fy, iwjk LVkQ j[kk gqvk FkkA cUn djs fHk{kqdksa dh pkSchlksa ?kUVs pkSdlh j[kh tkrh FkhA pkS[kV o f[kM+dh dc&dc fudkyh eSa mldh dksbZ fuf”pr frfFk o fnu ugha crk ldrkA lu~ djhc 2000 o 2001 gSA f[kM+dh pkS[kV fudky dj lfnZ;ksa esa vkap lsdus ds fy;s tyk nhAÞ 15. On behalf of the defendant, Savitri Shekarwat was examined on oath as D.W.1, who has deposed that the rent was paid earlier from receipts 41-Ga to 72-Ga. She has also admitted that since 1996 no rent has been paid. The said statement is quoted below: ßeSa 1998 ls ;gk¡ gw¡ esjs lkeus Jhefr izeksn feJk dks dksbZ fdjk;k ugha fn;k x;kA eqdnesa esa 96 ls fdjk;k ekaxk x;k Fkk D;ksafd 96 ls gh fdjk;k ugha fn;k x;k FkkA izeksn fejk us eqdnesa ls igys uksfVl tks fn;k Fkk og eq>s feyk FkkA uksfVl fnukafdr 1-8-2003 ds ckn geus fdjk;k uoEcj 2004 esa eqdnesa esa fdjk;k tek fd;kAÞ 16. After the receipt of the demand notice no rent was paid on behalf of the defendant as will appear from his own statement and any amount deposited either in the year, 2003 or 2004 cannot save the tenancy of the defendant as the suit was instituted as back as on 3rd November, 2003. 17. Judge Small Cause Courts while passing the order for eviction has recorded the finding that the defendant was in arrears of rent for not less than four months as the rent was due from 1996 and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within a period of 30 days from the service of the impugned notice of demand. 18. 18. Judge Small Cause Court has further recorded a finding that the substantial damage has been caused to the building without taking permission of the landlord in writing and as such the construction or structural alteration in the building has diminished the value of the building and has also disfigured it and therefore, the decree for eviction having been granted by the Judge Small Cause Court, requires no interference by this Court under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. 19. Relying upon the judgment of Madan Mohan and another v. Krishna Kumar Sood reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 162, it has been observed in Sukhanand Vs. IVth Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr 1993 (2) ARC Page 69 as under :- "7. As observed by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Madan Mohan and another v. Krishna Kumar Sood, reported in JT 1993 (1) SC 162; 1993 SCFBRC 133, what ever protection the Rent Acts give, they do not give blanket protection for non-payment of rent. This basic minimum requirement has to be complied with by the tenants. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he could continue to enjoy the same without payment of the rent. The onus to show payment of rent lies on a tenant. I respectfully fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Smt. Angoori Devi, reported in 1989 (1) ARC 540. Further mere oral testimony is not sufficient in this connection. In a case where the tenant comes forward with the allegations that the rent was paid but no receipt was issued with no explanation whatsoever, for not sending the rent by money order, then, in such a situation, the oral testimony of the tenant is regard to the payment of rent claiming discharge of the liability in this regard cannot be deemed to be worth reliance at all." 20. Further relying upon the judgment of Madan Mohan and another v. Mohan Kumar Sood 1993 (1) JT 162 in Mohd. Siddiqui v. IInd Additional District Judge, Unnao 1997 (2) ARC 400, it has been observed as under : "21. Further relying upon the judgment of Madan Mohan and another v. Mohan Kumar Sood 1993 (1) JT 162 in Mohd. Siddiqui v. IInd Additional District Judge, Unnao 1997 (2) ARC 400, it has been observed as under : "21. As pointed out by the Apex Court in its decision in this case of Madan Mohan and another v. Mohan Kumar Sood, reported in 1993 (1}) JT 162 : 1993 SCFBRC 133 (SC), whatever protection the Rent Acts give they do not give blanket protection for non-payment of rent. This basic minimum has to be complied with by the tenants. The Rent Acts do not contemplate that if one takes a house on rent he can continue to enjoy the same without payment of rent." 21. Scope of interference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act has been interpreted by the Apex Court from time to time. It is not an appellate jurisdiction and therefore, the findings of fact cannot be interfered. 22. In Harshvardhan Chokkani Vs. Bhupendra N. Patel 2002 SCFBRC 344, the Apex Court has observed as under : "Nonetheless, the High Court is exercising the revisional power which in its very nature is a truncated power. The width of the powers of the Revisional Court cannot be equated with the power of the Appellate Court. In examining the legally and the proprietary of the order under challenge, what is required to be seen by the High Court is whether it is in violation of any statutory provision or a binding precedent or suffers from misreading of the evidence or omission to consider relevant clinching evidence or where the inference drawn from the facts proved in such that no reasonable person could arrive at or the like, it is only in such situations that interference by the High Court in revision in a finding of fact will be justified. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power. From the above discussion, it is clear that none of the aforementioned reasons exists in this case to justify interference by the High Court." 23. Mere possibility of a different view is no ground to interfere in exercise of revisional power. From the above discussion, it is clear that none of the aforementioned reasons exists in this case to justify interference by the High Court." 23. In Miss Kanta Udharam Jagasia v. Shiv C.K.S. Rao 1998 SCFBRC 45, the Apex Court has observed as under : "The High Court, forgetting that it had a limited revisional jurisdiction, analysed the evidence and substituted its findings in place of the findings of the Competent Authority. On a perusal of the evidence, we find that the findings arrived at by the Competent Authority on the basis of oral evidence cannot be said to be perverse or even unreasonable requiring the High Court to reverse the same. It is well settled that though another view is possible on reappreciation of the evidence, the revisional Court may not interfere with the findings of the Lower Courts on that ground." 24. In Patel Valmik Himatlal v. Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai 1998 SCFBRC 351, the Apex Court has observed as observed as under : "5. The ambit and scope of the said section came up for consideration before this Court in Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri & Ors. (1987) 3 SCC 538, and after referring to a catena of authorities. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. drew a distinction between the appellate and the revisional jurisdictions of the Courts and opined that the distinction was a real one. It was held that the right to appeal carries with it the right of rehearing both on questions of law and fact, unless the statute conferring the right to appeal itself limits the rehearing in some way, while the power to hear a revision is generally given to a particular case is decided according to law. The High Court cannot substitute its own findings on a question of fact for the findings recorded by the Courts below on reappraisal of evidence. Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction? 6. The powers under Section 29 (2) are revisional powers with which the High Court is clothed. It empowers the High Court to correct errors which may make the decision contrary to law and which errors go the root of the decision but it does not vest the High Court with the power to re-hear the matter and re-appreciate the evidence. The powers under Section 29 (2) are revisional powers with which the High Court is clothed. It empowers the High Court to correct errors which may make the decision contrary to law and which errors go the root of the decision but it does not vest the High Court with the power to re-hear the matter and re-appreciate the evidence. The mere fact that a different view is possible on re-appreciation of evidence cannot be a ground for exercise of the revisional jurisdiction." 25. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the lower court need not to be interfered and the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 26. In view of the aforesaid observations, present civil revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.