Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Sanjai Tripathi for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This civil revision has been filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 against the judgment and order dated 21.05.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, District Sultanpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 01 of 2001 (Sri Ram Niwas Agrawal and another Vs. State of U.p. and others) whereby the learned court below has allowed the S.C.C. Suit passing the decree of Rs. 87,146.50 along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till actual payment is made. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the house in question belonging to respondents was taken on rent on the basis of agreement dated 28.12.1991, however, the rate at which the rent was to be paid i.e. Rs. 1.10 per square feet per month, total amounting to Rs. 3,100/- per month was to be paid subject to approval from the State Government which was not done. It is further submitted that the said agreement was void as Superintendent, Rajkiya Nirashrit Mahila Karmshala Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra, Nihalgarh, Jagdishpur, Sultanpur was not competent to enter into agreement on behalf of Government. 4. It is also submitted that the house in question was vacated, however, the suit for arrears of rent was filed claiming the rent as mentioned in the said agreement. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the revisionists were liable to pay the rent @ 0.75 paisa per square feet which was fixed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division subsequent to the Government Order dated 23.12.1994. The learned court below has wrongly passed the decree of the decreetal amount. 5. Mr. Sanjai Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in the said agreement dated 28.12.1991 there was no condition that the rent of Rs. 3,100/- per month would be payable subject to approval from the State Government. 6. It is further submitted that the Government Order dated 23.12.1994 is of the subsequent date. The house in question was taken on rent w.e.f. 28.12.1991 and the Government Order of the subsequent date i.e. 23.12.1994 cannot be enforced to govern the terms and conditions of the tenancy. 7. 6. It is further submitted that the Government Order dated 23.12.1994 is of the subsequent date. The house in question was taken on rent w.e.f. 28.12.1991 and the Government Order of the subsequent date i.e. 23.12.1994 cannot be enforced to govern the terms and conditions of the tenancy. 7. It is also submitted that even if the Superintendent, Rajkiya Nirashrit Mahila Karmshala Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra, Nihalgarh, Jagdishpur, Sultanpur was not competent to execute the said agreement, the respondents- landlord cannot be made to suffer for the fault on the part of an authority of the State Government. The respondent-landlords are fully entitled to get rent as per the agreement entered into between the parties and the learned court below has rightly allowed the S.C.C. Suit and passed the decree for the arrears of rent which comes to Rs. 87,146.50 along with interest. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the parties counsel. 9. It is the admitted position between the parties which is also evident from the record that the agreement dated 28.12.1991 does not contain any such condition which stipulates the approval of the State Government for the purpose of enforcement of the said agreement. In the agreement dated 28.12.1991 it has been specifically mentioned that monthly rent of the house in question shall be Rs. 3,100/- per month. As such, the learned court below has rightly held that the rent of the house in question as per terms of the said agreement, shall be Rs. 3,100/- per month. 10. The Government order dated 23.12.1994 is of the subsequent date and as per the aforesaid agreement the building was taken on rent w.e.f. 28.12.1991 itself, as such, the said Government Order cannot govern the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The learned court below has rightly come to conclusion that arrears of rent on the basis of the rate as mentioned in the said agreement comes to Rs. 87,146.50. 11. The learned court below has also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till actual payment is made which cannot be said to be on higher side. As such, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the learned Court below. 12. 87,146.50. 11. The learned court below has also awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till actual payment is made which cannot be said to be on higher side. As such, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the learned Court below. 12. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the revisionists that Superintendent, Rajkiya Nirashrit Mahila Karmshala Prashikshan Evam Utpadan Kendra, Nihalgarh, Jagdishpur, Sultanpur was not competent to enter into an agreement for the purpose of taking the house in question on rent is concerned, suffice is to say that the said agreement was sent through the District Magistrate concerned who was the competent authority as per the State Government vide Government Order dated 23.12.1994. It was the responsibility of the concerning authorities to have got the said agreement executed by the competent authority of the State Government. However, for that purpose the respondents-landlords cannot be denied the arrears of rent as per the agreed rate between the parties. 13. As such, I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists in this regard. 14. The revision being devoid of merits is dismissed. 15. The revisionists shall comply the judgment of the learned court below and pay the decreetal amount along with interest upto date within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. __________________