( 1 ) PRESENT civil revision has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 20. 9. 2008 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/ Special Judge (E. C.) Act in SCC Suit No. 4 of 2002 ( Ishrat Mir Versus Rahis Ahmad), decreeing in the aforesaid suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the revisionist. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts as disclosed are that JSCC Suit was filed against defendant-revisionist mentioning therein that defendant-revisionist is tenant at the rate of rent of Rs. 1500/- per month and tenancy starts on 19 of every month and ends on 18th of of succeeding month. Suit had been filed on the ground that defendant-revisionist was arrears of rent w. e. f. 19. 12. 2002 to 18. 8. 2003. Notice terminating tenancy on 1. 5. 2003 had been given. Thereafter, suit had been instituted on 21. 8. 2003, praying for arrears of rent and damages. Said suit was contested by the defendant-revisionist, by filing written statement and thereafter factum of tenancy was accepted. However, rate of rent was claimed as Rs. 250/- per month. Further it was mentioned that rent for the month of September, October, 2003, which was sent was accepted, as such suit is not maintainable, and further suit has been unnecessarily filed. ( 3 ) IN the on going proceeding, complaining non compliance of the Order 15 Rule 5 of C. P. C. , an application 24-G was moved on 12. 8. 2004 and to the same, objection has been filed on 27. 9. 2004. On the application moved for under Order 15 Rule 5, order was passed on 26. 10. 2004, by means of the same, defence of the tenant-revisionist was directed to be struck of. Thereafter, present JSCC Suit has been decided and rate of rent has been held to be Rs. 1500/- per month and defendant-revisionist to be in arrears of rent, and based on the same decree in question has been passed. At this juncture present JSCC revision has been filed. ( 4 ) SRI S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist assailed the validity of the judgment and decree passed by JSCC Court on the ground that in the present case agreement of tenancy between the parties was forged document and further rate of rent had never been fixed as Rs. ( 4 ) SRI S. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist assailed the validity of the judgment and decree passed by JSCC Court on the ground that in the present case agreement of tenancy between the parties was forged document and further rate of rent had never been fixed as Rs. 1500/- per month, and revisionist-tenant has never been in arrears of rent and once rent which has been sent, had been accepted, then in this background suit in question, if any, cannot be decreed. ( 5 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which has emerged in the present case is that Issue No. 1 was framed in respect of quantum of rent inter se landlord and tenant. In the present case burden of proving rent has been placed on the shoulder of landlord. In this direction documentary evidence was produced before the court, and with the permission of the court, evidence by means of affidavit 54-K was filed, and qua the said averment mentioned right of cross examination was conferred upon tenant-revisionist. Judge Small Causes Court in the present case has considered the evidence along with cross examination and thereafter, has found that statement of fact mentioned by the plaintiff was credible one and inter se parties there was an agreement, therein rate of rent had been fixed Rs. 1500/- per month. Once after appreciation of evidence, agreement has been found to be credible one , then in this background this court in exercise of its authority vested under Section 25 of Provincial of Small Causes Court Act,1887 would not act as appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence, specially when finding of fact returned can neither be dubbed as being unreasonable or perverse and as such finding of fact on Issue No. 1 is not being touched. ( 6 ) MUCH emphasis has been laid on the fact that in the present case by means of money order defendant-tenant-revisionist had sent rent for the month of September, and October, 2003 mentioning therein that rate of rent is Rs. 250/- per month and same was accepted by the landlord in this background same is admitted rent. Judge Small Causes Court Act has recorded categorical finding of fact that said amount was accepted in protest and once there is written agreement found inter se parties, wherein rate of rent has been found as Rs. 250/- per month and same was accepted by the landlord in this background same is admitted rent. Judge Small Causes Court Act has recorded categorical finding of fact that said amount was accepted in protest and once there is written agreement found inter se parties, wherein rate of rent has been found as Rs. 1500/-, then in this background this contention of tenant-revisionist cannot be accepted that by accepting Rs. 250/- per month , proceedings would come to an end. In the present case, Judge Small Causes Court has acted strictly within the parameter of law and has decided the suit rightly in its correct prospective, as tenant-revisionist has been found in arrears of rent, as such decree in question warrants no interference by this court. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, present revision is dismissed. However, six months time is allowed to tenant-revisionist to vacate the premises in question, subject to condition that within period of one month from today affidavit shall be filed before the court concerned clearly undertaking therein that on or before expiry of six months, premises in question shall be peacefully handed over to landlord and decretal amount be also paid within next six month. In the event of non vacation of premises in question and non payment of decretal amount, decree shall be executed in accordance with law within three months from the date execution proceedings are pressed. .