Pankaj Mithal, J.:— Heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist 2. The revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 challenges the judgment and order dated 22. 8. 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, exercising powers of the Small Cause Court Act decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent for arrears of rent and eviction. 3. The only point which arises for consideration in this revision is about the rate of rent of the premises in dispute. According to the plaintiffs respondents the rent of the premises was increased to Rs. 1500/- per month with effect from September, 2006 whereas according to the defendant revisionist the agreed rent was of Rs. 202/- per month and it continued to be the same and there is no increment as alleged. 4. There is no dispute that the premises was let out to Bhagwan Das, father of the defendant revisionist and he was paying rent of Rs. 202/- per month. It is said that sometime in the month of July, 2006 he had agreed with the landlord i. e. Smt. Bitola Devi, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs lespondents to vacate the premises within two months. However, before the aforesaid period could expire the tenant Bhagwan Das died and therefore, on the request of the defendant revisionist, they were allowed to retain the tenancy subject to enhancement of rent to Rs. 1500/- per month w. e. f. September, 2006. 5. Plaintiffs respondents have produced the counterfoils of the rent receipt book paper 70Ga from the month of September, 2005 to June 2008. The said counterfoils establish that the rent was Rs. 202/- per month till August, 2006. For the month of September, 2006 and October 2006, the rent receipts were issued @ Rs. 1500/- per month. The said counterfoils were not disputed by the defendant revisionist. The rent receipts produced by them were of the period prior to September, 2006 only. No evidence was produced to establish that there was no enhancement of rent as alleged w. e. f. September, 2006. The enhancement of rent was duly proved by the oral evidence of PW1 Kishore Kumar Gupta. 6. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the court below concluded that the rent of the premises in dispute stood increased to Rs. 1500/- per month w. e. f. September, 2006. The enhancement of rent was duly proved by the oral evidence of PW1 Kishore Kumar Gupta. 6. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the court below concluded that the rent of the premises in dispute stood increased to Rs. 1500/- per month w. e. f. September, 2006. 7. The aforesaid finding is a finding of fact and there is no material to successfully dislodged the said finding. 8. Thus, in view of above, I am of the opinion that the said finding cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional power. 9. Once the rate of rent is held to be Rs. 1500/- per month, the defendant revisionist admittedly is not entitle to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 so as to save his eviction. 10. No other point was raised and argued. 11. In the end Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist prays for some time to vacate the premises in dispute. 12. Sri Apoorv Hajela, learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs respondents leaves it upon the court to allow, if necessary, some reasonable time to vacate the premises. 13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the revision is dismissed but the revisionist is permitted to retain possession of the premises for a period of four months from today provided the defendant revisionist furnished an undertaking on affidavit that he will vacate the premises on or before the expiry of the above period and handover its peaceful possession to the plaintiff respondent and deposits the entire amount decreed within a period of one month from today and continues to deposit the rent @ Rs. 1500/- per month for the aforesaid four months by the 15th of each succeeding month. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no substance in the revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Revision accordingly dismissed. _____________