Krishna Murari, J. Heard Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2003 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court as well as revisional court order dated 12.01.2004 . 3. Suit No. 65 of 1996 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant-respondent no. 1 on the allegations that he was the tenant of the disputed accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs.50/- excluding municipal taxes. It was further pleaded that the house in dispute as well as another house situate in Gokulpura, Agra belonged to Shri Ram Krishna Asthana, father of the plaintiff, now represented by the present petitioners and respondent nos. 2 and 3. After his death, it was jointly inherited by them and since the plaintiff was residing outside Agra, the rent of the house in dispute was realised by respondent no. 3 herein. In January 1994, the properties were amicably partitioned and the house in dispute was allotted in the exclusive share of the petitioners, though respondent no. 3 was authorised to recover the rent from the tenant. It was further pleaded that in August 1994, when the plaintiff demanded the accounts from respondent no. 3, it was discovered that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent for a long time. The oral partition entered earlier was reduced in writing in the form of a memorandum on 09.08.1994 and the tenant was specifically informed that he was required to remit all the rent including arrears to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that tenant has substantially damaged the tenanted accommodation and has made additions and structural alteration diminishing its value and utility and his tenancy was terminated vide registered notice dated 23rd September, 1995 and despite service of notice, he has not vacated nor paid the arrears. The suit was contested by the tenant (respondent no. 1 herein) by filing a written statement alleging therein, inter alia, that plaintiff is one of the co-owner/landlord of the property in dispute and rent up to 31.12.1995 has been duly paid to respondent no. 3 and since 01.01.1996, the same is being regularly deposited in the Court, as such, there is no arrears. 1 herein) by filing a written statement alleging therein, inter alia, that plaintiff is one of the co-owner/landlord of the property in dispute and rent up to 31.12.1995 has been duly paid to respondent no. 3 and since 01.01.1996, the same is being regularly deposited in the Court, as such, there is no arrears. The allegations of family partition and service of notice was also denied. 4. Trial court holding that the plaintiff along with his two brothers (respondent nos. 2 and 3) were joint owners/co-landlords and the entire rent up to December, 1995 has been paid to respondent no. 3 and, as such, there were no arrears and, accordingly, dismissed the suit. Petitioner went up in revision. Revisional court affirming the findings recorded by the trial court, dismissed the same. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that trial court committed a manifest error of law in holding that the memorandum of family partition cannot be read in evidence as it is unregistered, inasmuch it is well settled that subsequent memorandum regarding oral family settlement does not require any registration. It is further submitted that mere fact that the tenant denied the title of the landlord was sufficient to pass a decree of eviction. 6. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned orders. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. Trial court after analysing the memorandum of family partition, recorded a finding that it was not a memorandum regarding an earlier partition deed, but was itself a document of partition, which was required to be compulsorily stamped and registered and, hence, was inadmissible in evidence. The said document has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is dated 9th August, 1994 signed by three brothers and records that this deed of partition is being made on 9th August, 1994. The said document has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It is dated 9th August, 1994 signed by three brothers and records that this deed of partition is being made on 9th August, 1994. A perusal of the document does not demonstrate that it records any family settlement arrived at some earlier point of time and indicates that the partition has been made on the same day on which it has been executed and, thus, it cannot be a memorandum of partition, but it is a partition and there cannot be any exception to the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court that it was inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration. In so far as arrears of rent is concerned, the two courts have recorded a concurrent finding that rent up to December, 1995 was duly received by the respondent no. 3, one of the co-landlord and thereafter it was deposited in the court and, thus, there was no default. Once, the plaintiff failed to establish that the house in dispute was exclusively owned by him after partition, the rent having been paid to the respondent no. 3, one of the co-landlords, which was duly proved in accordance with law, again there can be no exception to the finding of the two courts below that there was no arrears of rent. 9. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that since the tenant denied the title, a decree of eviction ought to have been passed, is also without any substance, inasmuch as a perusal of the written statement filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition goes to show that the tenant never denied the title of the landlord, rather it was asserted that plaintiff is one of the co-landlord along with the respondent nos. 2 and 3, thus, in effect, there was no denial of title. 10. The writ petition is concluded by findings of fact recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court, which are based on proper appraisal of evidence brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed point out that the findings are vitiated either for want of non-consideration of any material piece of evidence or are based on misreading of the same. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed point out that the findings are vitiated either for want of non-consideration of any material piece of evidence or are based on misreading of the same. 11. In view of above, the impugned orders do not require any interference by this Court. 12. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________