Ran Vijai Singh,J.:- Heard Sri Ravi Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 21.2.2005 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1 in S.C.C. No. 52 of 1985 (Sri Sudarshan Lal Jain and another Vs. Chaudhary Dharampal ) and order dated 22.3.2007 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 8 Muzaffar Nagarin SCC Revision No. 8 of 2005 (Abhinandan Prasad Jain Vs. Chaudhari Dharampal). 3. Vide order dated 21.2.2005, the suit filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent, on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and electricity charges etc., was dismissed, whereas by the subsequent order dated 22.3.2007, the petitioner's revision, challenging the order dated 21.2.2005, has also been dismissed. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears the petitioner filed S.C.C. No. 52 of 1985 against the respondent terminating his tenancy on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent i.e. Rs. 2664/- since 18.11.1984 to 13.9.1985, plus electricity charges of Rs. 271/-, plus printing charges Rs.344.50/-, plus damages Rs.360/- since 14.9.1985 to 20.10.1985, total Rs. 3639.50/-. The rent was demanded at the rate of Rs. 270/- per month. The respondent has filed written statement and stated that the rate of rent is Rs.150/- and not Rs. 270/- per month. He has also denied the arrears of rent as well as dues of electricity charges by stating that the electricity charges have been paid month to month. However, the service of notice terminating the tenancy has been admitted. 5. The trial court after exchange of pleadings has framed following issues. (1) Whether the defendant is a tenant @ 270/- per month or Rs. 150/- per month of the disputed accommodation ? (2) Whether any amount is due from the defendant in respect of the electricity charges ? (3) Whether the defendant has committed default in the payment of arrears of rent ? (4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? (5) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action as alleged in para 19 of the w.s. or whether the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 344.50 ps. (3) Whether the defendant has committed default in the payment of arrears of rent ? (4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? (5) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action as alleged in para 19 of the w.s. or whether the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 344.50 ps. as alleged to be printing charges due from the defendant? (6) Whether the notice determining the tenancy is illegal and ineffective? (7) Whether the defendant is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972? (8) To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? 6. While deciding the Issue No. 1, the trial court found that the rent of the accommodation in dispute was Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 270/-. So far as the Issue No. 2 is concerned, it has been held that nothing is to be paid to the plaintiff/petitioner. The Issue No. 3 has also been decided in negative. The court has found that there is no default in payment of rent. The Issue No. 4 and 5 have also been decided in negative. The Issue No. 6 has been decided in affirmative. The Issue No. 7 has been decided in favour of the respondent. So far as the Issue No. 8 is concerned, the court below held that the plaintiff/petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and consequently dismissed the suit. 7. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed revision, that has been dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 8 Muzaffarnagar on 22.3.2007. While assailing the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the petitioner. In his submissions, as per rent note, rent was Rs. 250/-per month which was enhanced subsequently upto Rs. 270/- and the respondent has not paid the rent since 18.11.1984 to 13.9.1985. So far as the electricity dues are concerned, he has submitted that the finding recorded by the courts below are perverse for the reasons that the petitioner has given details of the units and the rate of payment per month but the trial court, without considering the same, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not been able to provide the details of unit of which payment was not made. In this regard, he has invited attention of the Court towards annexure 3-A and para 15 of the writ petition. It is also contended that the courts below has erred in disbelieving the rent note on the ground that the same is unregistered particularly in the circumstances when it contains the signature of the respondent which in turn has been admitted by him.. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shibani Basu Vs. Sandip Ray 2010 (13) JT 786, Shyam Lal Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Agra 1989 (I) ARC 268 and Babu Ram Gupta Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others 1988 (1) ARC 80. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that neither there are any default in payment of rent nor electricity dues. The court below has also extended the benefit of Sub-Section 4 of Section 20 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. In his submissions, the matter is concluded by concurrent finding of fact and it does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Mahavir Prasad Narendra Kumar Jain (M/S.) and another Vs. Seventh Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2002 (U.P.)RCC 59, Nakeem Vs. District Judge, Mathura and others 2004 (U.P.) RCC 186 and Subhash Chand Sharma Vs. Ninth Additional District Judge, Agra and others 2002 (U.P.) RCC 655. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. So far as the submission of Sri Agrawal with respect to rent note which contains the signature of the petitioner in which the rate of rent is mentioned Rs.250/- per month is concerned, the court below has recorded categorical finding that the respondent has although admitted his signature over the aforesaid rent note but while admitting the signature, the respondent has also stated that the signature was obtained on the blank paper and Rs. 250/- was mentioned in hand writing by using ink and it was not filled up before him. It is also observed that the petitioner has claimed the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 250/- was mentioned in hand writing by using ink and it was not filled up before him. It is also observed that the petitioner has claimed the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 270/- but he has not been able to prove that since when the rate of rent was enhanced Rs. 270/- per month. It is also recorded that the landlord has not issued any receipt to the tenant. It is also observed that according to the Paper No. 357-C, there are many tenants in disputed House No. 17 on the different rate of rent and the rent of respondent is Rs. 150/- per month. The case of the respondent has through out been that rate of rent is Rs. 150/- per month and not Rs. 270/- which finds support from the Paper No. 357-C of the Nagar Palika. Taking note of this, the court below has held that the rate of rent is Rs. 150 and not 270/-. 10. So far as the electricity dues is concerned, in this regard it is recorded that the plaintiff has failed to prove the dues by providing evidence. Sri Agrawal, while assailing this finding, has invited attention of the court towards Annexure 3-A which contains the details of the unit and total amount due. Annexure 3-A do not find any mention in the body of the petition. In the body of petition, after Annexure 3 with regard to which statement has been made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, Annexure 4 has been annexed which find mention in para 8 of the writ petition, therefore no reliance can be placed upon Annexure 3-A, on which basis the petitioner is trying to assail the finding recorded by the learned court below. So far as the averments made in para 15 are concerned, there is a vague averment which is reproduced hereinunder:- That both the courts below has wrongly came to the conclusion that the tenant respondent was not default of any electricity dues from 17.12.1984 to the petitioner amounting Rs. 27313/- inspite of sufficient evidence on record about the date, meter reading, and the amount. Moreover the tenant respondent has failed to prove that he has paid any electricity dues since starting of the tenancy thus the finding that the tenant respondent is not liable to pay any electricity dues is wholly incorrect, malafide and illegal. 27313/- inspite of sufficient evidence on record about the date, meter reading, and the amount. Moreover the tenant respondent has failed to prove that he has paid any electricity dues since starting of the tenancy thus the finding that the tenant respondent is not liable to pay any electricity dues is wholly incorrect, malafide and illegal. In the submissions of Sri Agrawal, the reply of this paragraph has been given in para 15 of the counter affidavit . 11. Suffice it to note that from the perusal of the contents of paragraph 15, although the petitioner has assailed the finding by disclosing the amount due towards electricity charges but he has not filed any supporting material on the record either along with the writ petition or by stating that these papers were available before the courts below and the courts below have erred in not considering the aforesaid papers. In the last, he has submitted that the courts below have erred in not placing reliance upon the rent note for the reason that it was not registered. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shibani Basu Vs. Sandip Ray and Judgment of this Court in Shyam Lal Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Agra where the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has held that the rent note cannot be ignored merely for the reason that the same is unregistered. From the perusal of the judgments, I find that the rent note has not been ignored on the ground that it was not registered but the reason is that the respondent has denied the contents of the rent note. From the perusal of the Annexure 1, copy of the rent note which has been brought on the record by the petitioner himself, it is apparent that the amount Rs. 250/- had been filled up by hand whereas the entire rent note is printed. The contention of the otherside was that although he has made signature on the rent note but the rate of rent was not mentioned, therefore in my opinion, the rent note is either registered or unregistered it will make no difference. Sri Agrawal has also submitted that the court below has erred in placing reliance upon the assessment list of the Nagar Palika with respect to rate of rent. Sri Agrawal has also submitted that the court below has erred in placing reliance upon the assessment list of the Nagar Palika with respect to rate of rent. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Babu Ram Gupta Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, where this Court has held that the rate mentioned in the assessment register is not conclusive proof. The ratio of this case cannot be doubted but here the landlord himself has failed to bring on the record any evidence indicating that the rate of rent was Rs. 270/- and not 150/-. So far as the rent note is concerned, that although contains an amount of Rs. 250/-per month but that has been filled up by hand using ink and taking note of statement of respondent that it was filled up subsequently, the court below, while recording the finding, has taken help assessment register which cannot be said that only on the basis of the assessment register the court below has recorded finding that the rate of rent is Rs. 150/- and not 270/-. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as the matter is concluded by concurrent finding of fact, it has no worth to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The cases relied upon by the respondent as mentioned in the preceding paras fully support his contention. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find that the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate that the finding of facts recorded by the courts below are in any way perverse. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition fails, consequently, it is hereby dismissed. ____________