JUDGMENT : Rakesh Sharma, J. Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the revisionist-tenants and Sri S.P. Singh, advocate, who represents the Respondent-landlords. 2. Through the present revision, the erstwhile U. P. State Electricity Board, now the U. P. Power Corporation Limited, has assailed the order dated 10.2.1998, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Barabanki in S.C.C. suit No. 6 of 1983, P. M. L. Srivastava v. U. P. State Electricity Board. 3. An S.C.C. suit No. 6 of 1983, was filed by one P. M. L. Srivastava (now dead and represented by L.Rs. in the present case) for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation as also for eviction of the tenant from the premises, a bungalow situate in Mohalla Civil Lines, Barabanki. This bungalow is situate in front of the District Magistrate/Collector's residence in the main city of Barabanki. Earlier to the filing of the suit, the landlord had sought enhancement of rent and a formal order dated 18.6.1983 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki u/s 21(8) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 fixing Rs. 1,560 per month as rent of the premises, which was payable by the tenant with effect from 1.8.1979. The tenant had defaulted in making payment of this rent. He fell in arrears of rent and had not paid rent inspite of repeated demands. After a legal notice was served on the tenant on 6.7.1983 demanding arrears of rent and determining the tenancy, the aforesaid suit was filed. At the time of filing of the suit, the revisionist-tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 75,140 to be paid with effect from 1.8.1979. 4. The order dated 18.6.1983 enhancing the rent was challenged before the appellate court, i.e., III Additional District Judge, Barabanki, who dismissed the appeal on 3.3.1984. A writ petition was filed by the tenant in which a conditional order was passed by this Court on 30.8.1984 directing the tenant to pay Rs. 800 per month. However, this Court had observed that the proceedings for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent may continue, but no final orders shall be passed. A writ petition was filed by the tenant in which a conditional order was passed by this Court on 30.8.1984 directing the tenant to pay Rs. 800 per month. However, this Court had observed that the proceedings for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent may continue, but no final orders shall be passed. The writ petition filed by the tenant U. P. State Electricity Board was ultimately dismissed on 13.3.1985 and an SLP No. 4143 of 1985, filed against the said judgment and order of the High Court was also dismissed on 23.8.1994. 5. It has further emerged from record that the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki/appropriate authority enhancing the rent to Rs. 1,560 per month with effect from 1.8.1979 was affirmed by all the Courts i.e., trial court, High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Judge, Small Cause Court has taken note of these judgments and decided issues No. 1, 2 and 4 against the tenants holding that they were required to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1,560 per month with effect from 1.8.1979. However, the trial court has also held that the claim regarding part of the arrears of rent from 1.7.1979 to 8.8.1980 was barred by time. A legal and valid notice was served on the Defendants. 6. The learned court below, on the basis of material on record, has recorded detailed findings of facts that the entire rent, costs of the suit, interest etc. as provided u/s 20(4) of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972, was not deposited by the tenants before the due date. It was found that an amount of Rs. 21,256.46p. was deposited on 30.8.1983/1.9.1983. The suit was instituted on 10.8.1983. The first date of filing of written statement was 30.8.1983. The court below had come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 21,256.46p was not the entire amount of rent, which was to be deposited by the tenants. The Plaintiff-landlords had claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 1,560 from 1.8.1979. The Defendant-tenants were required to deposit rent at this rate of Rs. 1,560 per month, but the same was not deposited. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material on record. 8. The Plaintiff-landlords had claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 1,560 from 1.8.1979. The Defendant-tenants were required to deposit rent at this rate of Rs. 1,560 per month, but the same was not deposited. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material on record. 8. It is evident from record that the order dated 18.6.1983 passed by the appropriate authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawabganj, Barabanki was upheld by the three Courts i.e., Additional District Judge, High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. There was no stay order passed by any Court staying the operation of the order dated 18.6.1983 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate enhancing the rent as Rs. 1,560 per month to be paid with effect from 1.8.1979. The learned court below has rightly observed that the Defendant-tenants were bound to deposit the amount of rent to be calculated at this rate even, including time-barred rent, as provided u/s 20(4) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The tenant is statutorily bound to deposit the entire rent unconditionally. In the circumstances of the present case, the tenant cannot challenge that the rate of rent demanded by the landlord was excessive or incorrect,. The findings of fact recorded by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court are proper and valid. There is force in the submission made by Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent-landlords that it is not open for this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to question the findings of facts recorded by the Court below. The matter does not involve the question regarding illegal exercise or non-exercise of jurisdiction or the illegal assumption of jurisdiction by a Court. He has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submission, which squarely cover the case of the landlord : 1. Javed Jameel Vs. Distt. Judge and Others, (2006) 4 AWC 4184 2. Hari Krishna v. IVth Additional District Judge, Orai and Ors. 2004 (2) ARC 458; 3. Narain Prasad v. IXth Additional District Judge and Ors. 2004 (2) ARC 211; 4. Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Devi Prasad Gupta and Others, (2005) 2 AWC 1176 5. Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Sri Rajbir Singh Sethi and Ors. 2004 (1) ARC 173 (UHC); 6. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta v. Madan Mohan Mehrotra (Dead), through L.Rs. and Ors. 2004 (1) ARC 55; 7. 2004 (2) ARC 211; 4. Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Devi Prasad Gupta and Others, (2005) 2 AWC 1176 5. Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Sri Rajbir Singh Sethi and Ors. 2004 (1) ARC 173 (UHC); 6. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta v. Madan Mohan Mehrotra (Dead), through L.Rs. and Ors. 2004 (1) ARC 55; 7. Bishwa Nath Prasad Verma Vs. Jagdish Narain Srivastava (D) through L.Rs., (2007) 1 AWC 885 and 8. Mohd. Siddiq Vs. District Judge, Faizabad and another, (1999) 4 AWC 3577 9. Thus, the Defendant-tenants were required to deposit entire rent claimed by the landlord at the rate of Rs. 1,560 per month with effect from 1.8.1979 which included time-barred rent also. In the present case, it is evident from record that on the date of first hearing, the entire rent was not deposited unconditionally by the tenants and as such they were not entitled for benefits of Section 20(4) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. 10. For reasons discussed hereinabove, no interference is required. The revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs. 11. The revisionist-tenants shall vacate the premises within two months from today. The order has been passed in presence of the learned Counsel for the parities. The arrears of rent, etc. shall be paid to the Respondent-landlords after making adjustment of the amount already deposited by the revisionist-tenants in this Court.