S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. K. Awasthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned Counsel who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of new purchasers Devendra Kumar and Sadhna, who have also been substituted at the place of respondent No. 3. ( 2 ) THIS is tenants. writ petition. Original respondents No. 3 and 4 Mahendra Pal Singh and Shrimati Kalawati instituted S. C. C Suit No. 14 of 1988 against the original petitioners-tenants for eviction on the ground of default and subletting and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was decreed by J. S. C. C. /munsif, Pilibhit on 10. 7. 1989. However, finding on subletting was recorded in favour of the tenants. Property in dispute is a house rent of which is Rs. 31. 25 per month. ( 3 ) THE house in dispute was purchased by the plaintiffs respondents 3 and 4 on 21,9. 1981. Notice, was given on 26. 12. 1987 demanding rent from 21. 9. 1981. The tenant sent reply to the notice and stated that up till 1. 10. 1986 he had deposited the rent under section 30 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in Misc. Case No. 68 of 1981 and with effect from 1. 10. 1986 till 30. 11. 1987 the due rent was Rs. 500 which was being sent through money order. Admittedly the money order was sent and was accepted by the landlord. Trial Court/ J. S. C. C. in its judgment dated 10. 7. 1989 mentioned that there was no evidence of deposit of rent under section 30 from 1. 2. 1985 to 1. 10. 1986. (Actually the Trial Court held that tenders for the rent from 1. 2. 1985 till 31. 1. 1988 had to been filed. It was not the case of the tenant that he had deposited rent until 31. 1. 1988. Tenant pleaded that he had deposited rent till 30. 9. 1986 and had sent rent from 1. 10. 1986 to 31. 1. 1988 (Rs. 500) through money order which was accepted ). Trial Court held that for other deposits tenders had been filed but for the aforesaid period no tender had been filed. 1. 1988. Tenant pleaded that he had deposited rent till 30. 9. 1986 and had sent rent from 1. 10. 1986 to 31. 1. 1988 (Rs. 500) through money order which was accepted ). Trial Court held that for other deposits tenders had been filed but for the aforesaid period no tender had been filed. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the tenants-petitioners filed S. C. C. Revision No. 15 of 1989 which was dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Pilibhit through judgment and order dated 183. 1996, hence this writ petition. ( 5 ) IN the ground No. 5 of the memorandum of revision (Annexure 21) it was mentioned that two tenders through which rent from 1. 2. 1985 to 1. 10. 1986 was deposited had been lost, hence the certificates of deposits were obtained from the Treasury Office. These certificates have been annexed as Annexure 15 and 16 to the writ petition. They were issued on 4. 8. 1989 (after the decision of the Trial Court) showing that an amount of Rs. 250 was deposited on 8. 4. 1985 and an amount of Rs. 375 was deposited on 27,2. 1986, The total comes to Rs. 625 (20 x 31. 25 = 625 ). If these amounts were in fact deposited then the entire rent stands deposited. ( 6 ) IN the judgment of the Revisional Court it has been mentioned at the end of para 7 that parties filed some documents in revision, however, it is not legal to look in to the new evidence in revision, hence no benefit can be claimed by any party by filing evidence in revision. In my opinion in this regard the Revisional Court was utterly wrong. Revisional Court hearing revision under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act can very well take on record additional evidence if sufficient ground for the same as provided under Order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C. has been made out. After taking on record additional evidence Revisional Court can also look into the same and consider its effect. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated 18. 3. 1996 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Matter is remanded to the revisional Court. After taking on record additional evidence Revisional Court can also look into the same and consider its effect. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order dated 18. 3. 1996 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Matter is remanded to the revisional Court. If the Revisional Court has already taken on record the aforesaid two deposit certificates then it shall consider their effect on the question of default. However, if no formal order taking those certificates on record was passed then the Revisional Court shall hear the parties and decide as to whether these documents can be taken on record within the parameters of Order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C. If the Revisional Court takes those documents on record then it shall consider their effect. ( 8 ) DURING pendency of revision eviction of the tenants shall remain stayed provided that they deposit rent before Revisional Court for immediate payment to the landlords-respondents Rs. 1200 per month, w. e. f. November, 2007 by 7th of each succeeding month. The house in dispute is situate on an area of about 27 sq. meter and house in dispute along with adjoining commercial portion of about 15. 5 sq. meter has been sold at Rs. 9. 50 lacs and stamp has been paid on the valuation of Rs. 21. 78 lacs. Purchasers have been impleaded and along with their impleadment application they have filed copy of the sale deed.) This direction is being issued in view of the Supreme Court authority in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors, 2005 (58) ALR 650=2005 (26) AIC 84. ( 9 ) REVISIONAL Court shall make all efforts to decide the revision expedi-tiously preferably within eight months from the date on which certified copy of this order is filed. Petition Allowed. .