JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated December 03, 1987, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, in S.C.C. Revision No. 294 of 1985, whereby said authority has allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1985, passed by Civil Judge/Judge Small Causes Court, Roorkee, and decreed the S.C.C. Suit No. 08 of 1982, for ejectment of the tenant/petitioner. ( Earlier Roorkee was part of District Saharanpur). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is living in House No. 151/7 (Old No. 70/7) in Mohalla Chau Mandi, Railway Road, Roorkee, since 1962, as a tenant. Smt. Vidyawati, mother of respondent No. 3 and wife of respondent No. 4 was the original landlady, who died in the year 1976, leaving her five sons and three daughters besides her husband. The rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month. In the year 1978, petitioner asked the respondent No. 3 to make repairs in the house, but when he did not pay any heed, petitioner himself got the repairs done, costing Rs. 858.29 paise. The petitioner (tenant) sought realization of the said amount and got recovered Rs. 480/- through the court. Earlier, respondent No. 4 Bisheshwar Dayal, husband of Smt. Vidyawati, instituted suit No. 03 of 1979 for recovery of rent for the period March 1978 to December 1978, which was decreed by the trial court. But, on petitioner’s filing Revision No. 281/1982, the decree was set aside. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 08 of 1982 (from which these proceedings have arisen) in the court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Roorkee, against the petitioner (tenant) for his ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Before said suit was instituted, a notice was got served on the petitioner, in January 1984. The petitioner contested the suit and filed his written statement. To avoid the ejectment, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,280/- towards arrears of rent due, interest and cost of the suit. Before said suit was instituted, a notice was got served on the petitioner, in January 1984. The petitioner contested the suit and filed his written statement. To avoid the ejectment, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,280/- towards arrears of rent due, interest and cost of the suit. The trial court recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit for ejectment vide its judgment and decree dated November 21, 1985, which is annexed with the petition. Aggrieved by said judgment and order passed by the trial court (Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Roorkee), S.C.C. Revision No. 294 of 1985 was filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.12.1987, said revision was allowed and suit of the plaintiffs (landlords) was decreed for ejectment of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the impugned order on the ground that the revisional court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree of ejectment, as the petitioner was protected under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) by making necessary deposits in the court. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the suit for recovery of water tax and electricity charges was not maintainable. The amount claimed by the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 in the suit was not the actual amount due, and as such, it was not necessary for the petitioner to deposit whatever claimed by the plaintiff. Subsequently, after the creation of State of Uttarakhand, this writ petition was received by way of transfer from the Allahabad High Court, under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3 (plaintiff) in which it is alleged that the petitioner (tenant) had committed default in payment of rent for the period March 1978 to 31.12.1982, amounting to Rs. 1,920/-, apart from the water tax at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month totaling Rs. 114/-. Notice was served on the petitioner to pay, including costs of notices, a total amount of Rs. 2,466/-, which had become due. The suit was instituted for eviction of the defendant (present petitioner) and also for recovery of Rs. 1,920/-, apart from the water tax at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month totaling Rs. 114/-. Notice was served on the petitioner to pay, including costs of notices, a total amount of Rs. 2,466/-, which had become due. The suit was instituted for eviction of the defendant (present petitioner) and also for recovery of Rs. 680/- towards rent; Rs. 940/- towards damages (after termination of tenancy) and Rs. 114/- towards water tax. Though, the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant with respondent No. 3, but the trial court found the same proved on the record. The trial court further found that electricity charges to the tune of Rs. 815.82 paise was also payable by the petitioner to respondent No.3 and respondent No.4. Defending the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional court, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not entitled to the protection under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was given by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the case of Mahendra Pratap Garg Vs. Smt. Vijai Laxmi General; reported in 1983 Allahabad Rent Cases 74, and it is contended that in order to defeat the suit for ejectment, it is not necessary for a tenant to comply with the demand of the landlord as mentioned in the notice, and it is sufficient if the correct amount due is paid by the tenant. I have examined the aforesaid case law. In that case rate of rent was also in dispute. The rate of rent claimed by the landlord was Rs. 360/-, while the defendant alleged the same to be Rs. 125/- per month. In that circumstance, the Allahabad High Court found that since the actual rate of rent was Rs. 125/- per month, as such, the amount unconditionally deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing with interest and costs could be treated to be sufficient. But facts in the present case are different and the rate of rent is not in dispute. There is clear finding of fact recorded by the revisional court that the defendant failed to make the payment of rent due with interest, costs and necessary taxes. This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere into the finding of fact recorded by the court below. There is clear finding of fact recorded by the revisional court that the defendant failed to make the payment of rent due with interest, costs and necessary taxes. This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot interfere into the finding of fact recorded by the court below. The revisional court, after discussing the evidence on record, has given a clear cut finding that for a period of three years, the defendant (tenant) was required to pay Rs. 1,440/- as arrears of rent and damages (at the rate of rent), on the first date of hearing along with interest and costs, while admittedly, the payment made by him fell short of the same. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the revisional court. 6. As far as the relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, proceedings between the parties in the earlier round of litigation in Suit No. 03 of 1979 against the petitioner, attained finality after revision arisen out of said suit was allowed on 12.11.1983, by District Judge, Saharanpur. In said suit the tenant did not raise dispute of landlord and tenant, while in the present suit he has challenged the relationship which is otherwise also a ground for ejectment of the tenant. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner copies of the statement of the witnesses are enclosed which corroborate the reasons mentioned by the revisional court in the impugned judgment. 7. For the reasons as discussed above, this court does not find any error of law committed by the revisional court. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice the plaintiff is allowed to vacate the accommodation in question, within a period of two months, from today, failing which decree passed by revisional court may be got executed through trial court.