Devendra Pratap Singh, J.: - Heard learned Counsel for the peti­tioner and perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 30.9.2009 and 7.4.2010 by which both the Courts below have decreed the eviction suit filed by the respondent-landlord. 3. The respondent-landlord instituted a Small Causes Suit No. 158 of 1986 inter alia with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month but he defaulted in payment of rent from 1984 onwards and despite notice dated 7.10.1986 which was duly received by tenant on 13.10.1986, neither the rent was tendered nor the premises were va­cated. The petitioner-tenant filed this written statement admitting tenancy but stating that earlier he was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and the landlord wanted to increase it to Rs. 25/- in 1983 which was refused and there­fore, the suit has been instituted. It was further alleged that the tenant had tendered rent by money order dated 31.10.1986 which was not accepted and no rent was due. 4. After framing points of determination the Trial Court though found that none of the parties had brought any substantive evidence apart from their bald allegation with regard to payment of rent, it held that it would be deemed and the rent was paid, however it went on to hold that since the entire amount was not deposited on the date of hearing, the petitioner was not enti­tled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such it de­creed the suit for eviction. The Revisional Court affirmed the decree. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that once the Trial Court had recorded a finding that there was no arrears of rent, the suit itself could not proceed in view of section 20 (2) of the Act and therefore, the Revisional Court was not justified in dismissing the revision. 6. As already noticed above, the Trial Court finding that there was no ev­idence on record it went on to presume that the rent had been paid which was against the settled principles of law. 6. As already noticed above, the Trial Court finding that there was no ev­idence on record it went on to presume that the rent had been paid which was against the settled principles of law. The Revisional Court has rightly, after relying upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Smt. Sarojni, 1989(1) ARC 345 held that the burden of proving payment of rent is upon the ten­ant and since he had failed to prove payment of rent, it went on to hold that the tenant was a defaulter. Therefore, the suit was maintainable as the de­fault claimed was for more than four months and as such the suit was main­tainable. 7. It is then urged that the Revisionai Court ought to have remanded the matter to enable the Trial Court to record a finding of default of four months and it itself could not have appreciated the evidence on record. 8. No doubt, it is correct that the Revisional Court normally is not enti­tled to reappraise the evidence. However, the Revisional Court found that the suit had remained pending since 1986 and the Trial Court had illegally drawn an assumption in favour of the tenant and therefore, to cut the prolonged litiga­tion, it rightly held that since there was no evidence on record to prove pay­ment of rent, therefore rightly held that the petitioner was a defaulter. Assuming that the approach was irregular, however in the present facts, the Court is not inclined to interfere on this ground. 9. It is urged that since the Court below found that the rate of rent was Rs. 15/- not Rs. 100/-, therefore, the notice was invalid. In the opinion of the Court, this cannot be a ground to invalidate the notice. 10. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. Petition Rejected.