JUDGMENT D.P. SINGH, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against a revisional order dated 19.10.2005 by which the eviction suit filed by the petitioner-landlord has been dismissed and the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court has been set aside. 3. The petitioner-landlord instituted a SCC Suit No. 24 of 2000 before the Judge, Small Causes Court for the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of default, subletting etc. 4. After the parties had led their evidence, the trial vide its judgment and order dated 25.5.2001 returned a finding that the respondent-tenant was a defaulter and had sublet the building, accordingly, it decreed the suit. 5. Aggrieved, the respondent-tenant filed Revision No. 84 of 2001 which has been allowed by the impugned order. 6.. Apart from raising several arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Revisional Court apart from illegally re-appreciating the evidence on record, had erred in law in holding that the sub tenancy was not proved. . 7. The consistent case of the petitioner-landlord was hat the disputed shop was let out to Sushil Kumar only and without consent of the District Magistrate or the landlord, he had inducted one Ravindra Kumar against the provisions of the Act. To prove that the tenancy was settled only with Sushil Kumar, who was paying rent, apart from oral evidence, he had relied upon a rent deed which was filed as paper No. 21-C and a rent receipt which was filed as paper No. 22-C. 8. The Trial Court after examining all the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the disputed shop, has been illegally sublet to Ravindra Kumar. 9. The Revisional Court though found that the rent deed had been proved by the petitioner but as the tenant had denied its execution and it was a unregistered document, it could not be read in evidence. Assuming it to be correct, the Revisional Court has totally misapplied itself in holding that both Sushil Kumar and Ravindra Kumar were joint tenants on the basis of the rent receipt. Photocopy of the original rent receipt has been filed and is on record and its perusal shows that in the column for showing the name of the tenant it was clearly written as Sushi! Kumar son of Sri Shanti Prakash only. Photocopy of the original rent receipt has been filed and is on record and its perusal shows that in the column for showing the name of the tenant it was clearly written as Sushi! Kumar son of Sri Shanti Prakash only. Against the name of the depositor some initial has been made which was deciphered by the Revisional Court as 'R.K.' and he has assumed that it was Ravindra Kumar. It is common knowledge that any person can deposit the rent in the name of the tenant and no law requires that the tenant personally should deposit or tender the rent. This conjecture of the Revisional Court was without any basis. A perusal of the receipt shows that the initial mentioned by the depositor could also be read as 'S.K'. This fact if considered along with other evidence, would lead to only one conclusion i.e. the tenancy was with Sushil Kumar only and the Revisional Court erred in law in re-appreciating the evidence to this extent. It is not denied that Ravindra Kumar is not a family member of Sushil Kumar. 10. For the reasons above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.10.2005 is hereby quashed and the decree of the Trial Court is hereby restored. 11. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Petition Allowed.