JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. The present civil revision is directed against the order dated 23.8.2013 wherein while disposing of Issue No.15, the Trial Court has held that it has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. 3. A suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits was filed by the respondent plaintiff, alleging that the shop in dispute was let out to the petitioner tenant, initially at Rs.200/- per month, which subsequently stood enhanced to Rs.600/- per month, w.e.f. January, 2000. The plaint further alleged that the rent @ of Rs.600/- per month stands paid upto 31.5.2008. 4. While disposing of Issue No.15 pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court i.e. the court of Additional District Judge (Court No.1), Jaunpur, the court below was of the view and rightly so that the jurisdiction is dependant upon the allegations made in the plaint. Thus when the plaint alleged that the rent of the shop in dispute stood enhanced to Rs.600/- w.e.f. January, 2000, and the rent @ Rs.600/- per month remains unpaid w.e.f. 1.6.2008. Thus computing the valuation as given in Reliefs A and B, in the plaint it could not be disputed that the suit as framed and filed, was within the pecuniary limit of the court concerned. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that as per the rent note, the rate of rent of the shop in dispute was Rs.200/- per month, and the Trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction is devoid of merit and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. The revision is dismissed.