JUDGMENT Devendra Pratap Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent judgments dated 22.9.2008 and 16.7.2010 by which a suit for eviction and arrears of rent of the respondent landlord has been decreed by both the courts below. 3. It appears that the respondent landlord instituted a Small Causes Suit No. 77 of 2003 against the petitioner inter alia with the allegation that he was a tenant of the disputed premises at Rs. 110/- per month but, despite notice he defaulted in payment of rent w.e.f. August, 1998 thereafter he sent a notice of demand and determined the tenancy vide notice dated 19.5.2003 but as there was some calculation mistake, he sent another notice dated 19/30.7.2003 demanding arrears of rent from 1.10.2000 to 31.8.2003 but neither the rent was paid nor the premises vacated forcing him to file the suit. 4. The suit was contested by the petitioner admitting his tenancy at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month. It was further alleged that though rent for March, 1998 was given to the landlord, he did not issue any receipt but on the contrary he got a notice of demand dated 28.7.1999 issued through his lawyer. It was further alleged that he had sent rent for uptill August, 1998 which was received by him and thereafter the rent of September, 1998 to February, 1999 sent by money order was received and so also the rent of March, 1999 to June, 1999 but the same was refused. However, he again sent rent for March, 1999 to October, 1999 which was also refused forcing him to deposit the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 where he has deposited the amounts. 5. Both the parties filed their respective evidences. After considering the evidence on record, both the courts below have held that the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent as he was not entitled to protection under Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and decreed the suit.? 6. It is urged that the notice was never served on the petitioner and therefore, the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit and also that the earlier notice and admission attributed to him was also erroneous. 7. 6. It is urged that the notice was never served on the petitioner and therefore, the courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit and also that the earlier notice and admission attributed to him was also erroneous. 7. Both the courts below have recorded a categorical findings of fact that both the registered as well as ordinary notice under postal certificate was duly served upon the tenant and which fact was also proved by a certificate issued by the post office. 8. It needs no reiteration that where a registered letter is correctly addressed, its service would be presumed unless proved otherwise. Apart from bald denial the petitioner did not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption of service. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner himself has relied upon the notice and therefore, the courts below were justified in acting upon it. 9. It is then urged that the approach of the revisional court in entering into the evidence, was beyond its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act and it has wrongly relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Southern Sales and Services Vs. Sauermilch Design and Handles [ 2008 (14)SCC 457 ]. 10. Even in a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act the revisional court is justified in examining evidence which has not been examined by the trial court especially when it goes to the root of the issue. 11. It is then urged that the petitioner was entitled to the deposit under Section 30 of the Act. Both the courts below have found that the deposit under Section 30 was despite a notice of demand and therefore, have rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to its benefit. Apart from that, even assuming that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 30, even then there was default and therefore, the suit was rightly dismissed. 12. No other point has been urged. 13. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.