Judgment Soumen Sen, J. This revisional application directed against an order dated 3rd March, 2014 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Small Causes Court in Ejectment Suit No.251 of 2006. The Court below by an order dated 3rd March, 2014, allowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the “Tenancy Act”). Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present revisional application has been filed. The Court below on appreciation of evidence and after going through the documents exhibited in the said proceeding found that the rent for the month of September, 2004 was sent through Money Order and upon refusal by landlord, the said opposite parties started depositing the rent from the month of September, 2004 before the Rent Controller till May, 2006 and from 2006 onwards they were depositing rent before the said Court. On such appreciation of evidence, a finding is arrived in favour of the opposite party. Mr. Rout appearing in support of the revisional application submitted that the learned Court below has committed a jurisdictional error in overlooking the provision of Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in allowing the application filed by the tenant under Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. It is submitted that before availing any benefit under Section 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the petitioner would be required to establish that there has been a tender of rent by the tenant to the landlord and on such tender the landlord had refused to accept the said rent. Only thereafter, the tenant can remit the rent to the landlord by postal order within 15 days of such refusal. The learned Counsel has referred to Paragraph 4 of the affidavit on evidence of the opposite party and submitted that in Paragraph 4, there is no categorical statement by the defendant-tenant that the said tenant had tendered rent for the month of September, 2004, to the landlord and on such tender being made, the landlord has refused to accept the said rent. The learned Counsel has also referred to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in the aforesaid proceeding to show that there has been a categorical denial of tendering of such rent by the tenant to the landlord. Per contra, Mr. The learned Counsel has also referred to the affidavit filed by the plaintiff in the aforesaid proceeding to show that there has been a categorical denial of tendering of such rent by the tenant to the landlord. Per contra, Mr. D. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the tenancy is a monthly tenancy. Since the inception of the tenancy, the rents were tendered by hand in cash and the same used to be received by the landlord in cash. The landlord suddenly from 2004 has refused to accept the rent tendered by hand and in view thereof, the tenant remitted the rent by Money Order. The opposite party has also relied upon Paragraph 4 of the affidavit on evidence of the defendant and submitted that there is a categorical statement with regard to the tender of rent and refusal by the landlord. It is submitted that in such a situation where the practice had been to tender rent in cash by hand to prove actual refusal would be impossible to prove. Such issue has to be decided on the basis of the evidence. Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 states that if in any suit referred to in sub-section (1) meaning thereby a suit for eviction on the grounds referred to in Section 6, there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the tenant shall within the time specified in the sub-section, deposit with the Civil Judge, the amount admitted by him to be due from him together with the application for determination of rent payable. Section 21 of the said Act deals with deposit of rent by tenant. It states that in case of refusal by the landlord to accept the rent tendered by the tenant within the period prescribed, the tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by postal Money Order within 15 days of such refusal. In the event, the landlord refused to accept rent sent by postal Money Order and is returned to the tenant by the postal authority as undelivered, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller within 15 days from the date on which it is so returned to the tenant. In the event, the landlord refused to accept rent sent by postal Money Order and is returned to the tenant by the postal authority as undelivered, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller within 15 days from the date on which it is so returned to the tenant. That the money sent by Money Order has been refused by the plaintiff is not in dispute inasmuch as the postal receipt returned with the endorsement ‘refused’ was exhibited in the proceeding without any objection. The plaintiff admits to have refused to accept the rent. The issue of tender and refusal is to be decided on the basis of affidavit evidence and it cannot be said that the findings arrived at by the Court below on the basis of the evidence on record is perverse. This Court in exercising its jurisdiction, as a revisional Court cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Lower Court. The view taken by the Civil Judge is a view possible on the basis of the evidence on record. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Small Causes Court. The revisional application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.