Pankaj Mithal, J.;— The defendant/revisionist is a tenant in house No.65/254, Moti Mohal, Kanpur. He was inducted as tenant therein by Smt. Leelawati plaintiff/respondent No.2. 2. Plaintiff/respondent No.2, Smt. Leelawati instituted a small cause court suit claiming arrears of rent and for eviction. On contest, the suit has been decreed vide judgment and order dated 30.4.2012 passed by Additional District Judge exercising power of Judge, Small Cause Court. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the defendant/revisionist has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. I have heard Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.2 who have agreed for final disposal of the revision on the basis of the pleadings exchanged between the them. 5. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendant/revisionist is that the notice on the basis of which the suit was instituted was invalid and, therefore, it could not have been decreed. 6. Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist contends that the premises in dispute, though described as a house, was let out for the purposes of manufacturing of 'Petha' (sweets) and, therefore, the tenancy would be on year to year basis for which a notice of six months period for determining the tenancy was necessary. 7. The notice determining tenancy is dated 23.3.2002. It was served upon the defendant/revisionist personally on 26.3.2002. It was replied on 4.5.2002. The said notice gives defendant/revisionist a period of 30 days for tendering the arrears of rent etc. whereupon, in default, the tenancy would stand determined. 8. Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that in the absence of any written contract of lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable by a six months' notice and a lease of any immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on a month's notice (now reduced to 15 days w.e.f. 31.12.2002 vide Act No.3 of 2003). 9. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act stipulates that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument. 10. 9. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act stipulates that a lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument. 10. In view of the above two provisions the lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purpose shall be a lease from year to year and such a lease can only be by a registered instrument. 11. Admittedly there is no instrument of the aforesaid lease, much less a registered instrument. Therefore, the lease in question cannot be regarded as a lease from year to year basis or for a period exceeding one year. 12. The defendant/revisionist as D.W.1, while admitting that no instrument of lease was executed and registered also accepted that he used to pay rent on monthly basis and that the tenancy is from month to month. 13. In view of the above statement of the defendant/revisionist it is established that the lease was monthly in nature and that it could not have been for any agricultural or manufacturing purpose. 14. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the court below rightly, placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 (1) ARC 42 Ram Kishore Seth Vs. Ramautar held that where the tenancy is from month to month it is terminable by giving a month's notice. 15. I find no error in the aforesaid finding and the submission that the notice is invalid has no substance. 16. Learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist further argued that the plaintiff/respondent is no longer the owner of the premises in dispute as the same has been acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority and, therefore, even if the question of title is not to be decided in the suit, he cannot maintain the suit for his eviction. 17. On the pleadings of the parties, it is an admitted case that the defendant/revisionist was inducted as tenant by the plaintiff/respondent and that he had been paying rent to the plaintiff/respondent earlier. Thus, the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties stands duly admitted. 18. The submission in this regard is that the plaintiff/respondent misrepresented and by hiding her actual status had let out the premises in dispute to the defendant/revisionist and, therefore, once the misrepresentation had come to light she cannot be permitted, in law, to evict the defendant/revisionist. 19. Thus, the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties stands duly admitted. 18. The submission in this regard is that the plaintiff/respondent misrepresented and by hiding her actual status had let out the premises in dispute to the defendant/revisionist and, therefore, once the misrepresentation had come to light she cannot be permitted, in law, to evict the defendant/revisionist. 19. In this connection, the court below in deciding issue No.1 has found that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. 20. The defendant/revisionist had filed an application in the court below disputing the title of the plaintiff/respondent and contended that as the ownership of the premises in dispute is involved, the plaint of the suit be returned for presentation to proper court of jurisdiction in view of Section 23 of the Act. The said application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 2.5.2011 holding that in the suit only the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is to be seen and not the title and when the said relationship is admitted the plaint cannot be returned for presentation to any other court. 21. The aforesaid order was upheld in revision by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2011 and it was clearly mentioned that the defendant/revisionist in his statement has admitted himself to be a tenant and the plaintiff/respondent to be the landlord. 22. In view of the above position, existence of relationship tenant and landlord between the parties stand fully established and the controversy as to whether the plaintiff/respondent has ceased to be owner or whether the house has actually been acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority is of no significance. 23. In the above situation, I am not inclined to discuss the various authorities cited by the parties regarding the applicability of principle of estoppal or vesting of the suit premises with the Kanpur Development Authority on the basis of the memo of possession which was stated to be symbolic in nature only. 24. The above submission advanced on behalf of the defendant/revisionist also has no merit and stands rejected. 25. Lastly, it has been submitted that the rent of the premises in dispute was only Rs.300/- per month and not Rs.600/- as claimed by the plaintiff/respondent. 26. 24. The above submission advanced on behalf of the defendant/revisionist also has no merit and stands rejected. 25. Lastly, it has been submitted that the rent of the premises in dispute was only Rs.300/- per month and not Rs.600/- as claimed by the plaintiff/respondent. 26. On the aforesaid point, the court below formulated issue No.2 and has returned a finding that from the rent receipts on record it is proved that the defendant/revisionist was paying rent of Rs.600/- per month. 27. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact and cannot be disturbed without reappraisal of the evidence on record which is not permissible in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. 28. The argument is that the defendant/revisionist had denied his signatures on the aforesaid receipts and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the court to have called for a report from a hand writing and finger print expert before placing reliance on the said receipts. 29. The burden to prove that the receipts in question do not bear his signature was upon the defendant/revisionist who was alleging it to be so. He could have adduced evidence in the form of report of hand writing expert to prove the same. He has not done so. He cannot, as of right, insist that the court could should have called for such an evidence, particularly when Section 73 of the Evidence Act authorises the court to compare the hand-writing and signatures and to come to its own conclusion. The court below in exercise of above power had itself compared the signatures on the defendant/revisionist on the said receipts with his admitted signatures and to its satisfaction found that the receipts do bear his signatures. 30. In this view of the matter, if the opinion of the hand-writing expert was not considered to be relevant and necessary the decision cannot be faulted with. 31. No other point was raised and pressed before me. 32. The revision lacs merit and is dismissed. 33. 30. In this view of the matter, if the opinion of the hand-writing expert was not considered to be relevant and necessary the decision cannot be faulted with. 31. No other point was raised and pressed before me. 32. The revision lacs merit and is dismissed. 33. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the defendant/revisionist is carrying on business from the premisses in dispute, he is allowed six months' time to vacate it provided he gives a undertaking on affidavit before the court below within a period of two weeks from today that he would vacate and peacefully handover the possession of the same to the plaintiff/respondent within the time allowed above and deposits entire arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, as decreed by the court below by 15th of September, 2012, and also continues to pay/deposit damages for its use and occupation with effect from August, 2012 till its vacation on monthly basis by the 15th of each succeeding month. _____________