( 1 ) PRESENT JSCC Revision has been filed questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 27. 09. 2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 2) Bareilly in JSCC suit No. 4 of 1999 (Smt. Akhtari Begum Vs. Azad Khan and others ). ( 2 ) BRIEF background of the case is that defendants-revisionist are tenant of the premises in question and JSCC suit was filed on the ground that rent in question was stopped w. e. f. 01. 09. 1995. Thereafter notice was given for ensuring payment of rent and to handover possession and even as after received of the notice rent in question for the period starting w. e. f. 01. 09. 1995 to 30. 09. 1998 was not ensured and house in question was also not vacated then suit was filed. Suit in question was contested disputing landlord tenant relation ship and ownership has also been sought to be disputed. Thereafter evidence was led from both the sides on the issue framed and thereafter JSCC suit in question has been decreed on 27. 09. 2008. At this juncture present JSCC Revision has been filed. ( 3 ) SRI Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist contended with vehemence that in the present case Judge Small Causes Court ought to have transferred the proceedings before regular court and there was no landlord tenant relationship as such said suit in question cannot be decreed. ( 4 ) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, evidence available on record has been perused. Judge Small Causes Court in the present case has framed three issues. While considering issue no. 1 as to whether there existed landlord tenant relationship or not,a after considering documentary evidence available on record categorical finding of fact has been returned that there existed landlord tenant relationship inter se parties on the basis of documentary evidence. Once categorical finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of assessment of evidence then in this background this Court in exercise of its authority under Section 25 of Provincial of Small Causes Court Act 1870 cannot re appreciate the evidence, as such said finding of fact is affirmed. On the issue no. 2 categorical finding of fact has been returned that tenants are in arrears of rent. Consequently in the present case finding of fact returned neither being perverse nor unreasonable, is not being interfered. On the issue no. 2 categorical finding of fact has been returned that tenants are in arrears of rent. Consequently in the present case finding of fact returned neither being perverse nor unreasonable, is not being interfered. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY present JSCC Revision as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed. However, Revisionists are accorded six months time to vacate the premises in question and hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the respondent-landlady, subject to the condition that within one month from today affidavit shall be filed by the revisionist before the Judge Small Cause Court that premises in question will be vacated on or before expiry of the period as aforesaid. In the event of affidavit not being filed within one month from today, the interim protection shall cease to operate, and landlady would be at liberty to proceed accordingly, and interim protection of this Court would not come to rescue of revisionist. .