Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- 1. This civil revision petition by the petitioner-landlord is directed against concurrent finding of dismissal of his eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur on 8.8.1997 (Annexure P-1) as also of appeal (Annexure P-2) by the Appellate Authority under the Act on 2.3.2000. 2. Sole ground for eviction of tenant from the premises i.e. shop in dispute was non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1991 @ Rs. 550/- per month. 3. Contesting the eviction petition, plea of the respondent-tenant before the Rent Controller was that monthly rent was not Rs. 550/- but was Rs. 250/- and that rent upto November, 1993 stood paid though no receipts were being issued by the landlord. It is claimed that the rent used to be paid in presence of the named persons and of other tenants of the landlord. Thus, not only period of arrears of rent but even rate of rent was subject matter of adjudication before the Rent Controller. 4. Appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties, the Rent Controller had come to a firm finding that rent was Rs. 250/- per month and that the arrears of rent for the period w.e.f. 1.4.1991 to 30.4.1994 stood paid on 29.4.1994 and the payment had been accepted by the landlord. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same was dismissed. The Appellate Authority has affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and finding no merit in the appeal, had dismissed the appeal as well. 5. In this revision petition, the landlord has taken up a plea that the rent tendered by the tenant was short not only on account of rate of rent but also on the point that the tenant had not actually paid the rent upto November, 1993. 6. It is claimed that over reliance of the Rent Controller on entries in the House Tax Register (Ex. R1) for determination of the rate of rent was neither warranted nor was legally sustainable. It is claimed that adjacent shop of the landlord on tenancy was also subject matter of litigation wherein the tenant had been asked to pay rent @ Rs. 750/- per month by the Appellate Authority i.e. while deciding appeal No. 8 dated 23.1.1998. R1) for determination of the rate of rent was neither warranted nor was legally sustainable. It is claimed that adjacent shop of the landlord on tenancy was also subject matter of litigation wherein the tenant had been asked to pay rent @ Rs. 750/- per month by the Appellate Authority i.e. while deciding appeal No. 8 dated 23.1.1998. It is urged that the Rent Controller did not take into account this judgment and passed an adverse order against the landlord without any law or logic. 7. It is further claimed that Amrik Singh, tenant on the adjoining shop, had entered the premises as a tenant much earlier to the present tenant and had been paying rent @ Rs. 300/- per month even though the shop in his possession was half of the width of the shop in question. It is claimed that the respondent who was incepted as a tenant much later, could not have been taken as a tenant in the shop of double the size on rent only of Rs. 250/- per month. It was urged that when the landlord had been issuing receipts of payment of rent in the note book of the respondent-tenant, non-production of the said note book was to be construed adversely to the tenant. 8. Claiming that the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority omitted important aspects and overlooked certain other things, the petitioner-landlord has urged acceptance of appeal by reversing the impugned orders. Eviction of the tenant has been sought. 9. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioner while going through the paper book. 10. Concurrent findings on facts recorded by the Rent Controller in impugned order of 8.8.1997 and by the Appellate Authority in its order of 2.3.2000 leave very limited scope for the petitioner-landlord to assail the impugned orders. Concomitantly, domain and sweep of interference to be made by this Court in revisional jurisdiction, is also limited. 11. There is neither rent note nor any written document which incorporates terms and conditions of the tenancy. Assertion of the petitioner-landlord that after receipt of the rent, he had been issuing receipt on the note book of the tenant, has remained unsubstantiated by him. 12. 11. There is neither rent note nor any written document which incorporates terms and conditions of the tenancy. Assertion of the petitioner-landlord that after receipt of the rent, he had been issuing receipt on the note book of the tenant, has remained unsubstantiated by him. 12. When oral evidence of the petitioner-landlord in his statement as AW1 and statement of his associate Om Parkash as AW2 is considered, it is found to be highly sweeping and very general that rate of rent was Rs. 550/- per month and that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1991. Version of the tenant regarding rate of rent as also qua arrears of rent is on better footings. The tenant has appeared as RW5. He had also examined co-tenant Madan Lal (RW2), Amrik Singh (RW3) and Om Parkash (RW4). All these witnesses have categorically deposed that the tenant was paying rent @ Rs. 250/- per month. Despite probing cross-examination on tenant Sat Pal (RW5) as also his witnesses Madan Lal (RW2), Amrik Singh (RW3) and Om Parkash (RW4), nothing impeaching their credit could surface. Whereas Amrik Singh (RW3) is tenant of the petitioner-landlord himself, Madan Lal and Om Parkash Rws are settled on the tenanted premises in the vicinity and quite often had been watching the respondent-tenant when he used to pay his rent to his landlord. 13. In addition to convincing and cogent testimony of the respondent-tenant, there is supportive and sustaining deposition of Madan Lal (RW2), Amrik Singh (RW3) and Om Parkash (RW4). Thus, version of the tenant is more plausible. 14. Version of respondent-tenant is that when he had found threat of forcible eviction from his landlord from the premises in dispute, he had also filed a suit in the civil court from where he had obtained stay order against his forcible eviction. 15. Clinching evidence is available in the objection petition preferred by the landlord before the municipal authorities, wherein he had raised a dispute regarding quantum of house tax proposed by the Municipal Committee, Ferozepur. Pursuant to receipt of notice (Ex. R7) regarding provisional assessment of house tax, objections (Ex. R6) were preferred by the landlord and order (Ex. R8) was passed on the said objections. 16. Pursuant to receipt of notice (Ex. R7) regarding provisional assessment of house tax, objections (Ex. R6) were preferred by the landlord and order (Ex. R8) was passed on the said objections. 16. Banarsi Dass, Junior Assistant of Municipal Committee, Ferozepur appearing as RW1 had not only brought the summoned record relating to house tax of the premises from 1992 to 1995-96 but proving documents Ex. R5 to Ex. R8 from the record, he had categorically deposed that landlord had four shops, out of which, three are on rent and the respondent is a tenant on one of these three shops. Madan Lal (RW2) makes the position clear even further when he has deposed that the respondent continues to be tenant in the shop since March, 1989 and that he had been paying rent @ Rs. 250/- per month. Nothing is of more importance than the objection petition Ex. R6 of the landlord. From averments of objection petition Ex. R6, it clearly emerges that rate of rent was Rs. 250/- per month. 17. Apparently based on document Ex. R6 which contains admission of the landlord in assessment register (Ex. R1) for the year 1992-93, rate of rent of the shop in dispute is mentioned as Rs. 250/- per month. Receipt of money order (Ex. R2) read in conjunction with money order (Ex. R3) and receipt thereto as Ex. R4, it becomes evident that the rent @ Rs. 250/- for the month of December, 1993 had been sent by the tenant to the landlord. Even the petitioner-landlord appearing as AW1, when was subjected to close cross-examination at the behest of the respondent, had conceded that the premises were located within the limits of the Municipal Committee and were being assessed to payment of house tax. He had also conceded that the house tax was assessed correctly by the municipal authorities. Based on such admission in testimony of the landlord as also in document Ex. R6, liability of the petitioner had been assessed taking the rent of the demised shop @ Rs. 250/- per month. Consequently, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 18. Even otherwise, it is clear that payment of arrears of rent @ Rs. 250/- per month was acknowledged before the Rent Controller w.e.f. 1.4.1991 to 30.4.1994 on 29.4.1994. 250/- per month. Consequently, no fault can be found with the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 18. Even otherwise, it is clear that payment of arrears of rent @ Rs. 250/- per month was acknowledged before the Rent Controller w.e.f. 1.4.1991 to 30.4.1994 on 29.4.1994. The arrears of rent tendered by the tenant have also been accepted by the petitioner-landlord without any objection. 19. Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, when the petitioner-landlord had neither been able to establish rate of rent of the premises in dispute being @ Rs. 550/- per month nor has been able to prove that the tenant was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.4.1991, version of the tenant on both these counts being sound and convincing, was rightly accepted by the landlord. In addition to its acceptance, the same is logical and appropriate. 20. Sequelly, findings of facts recorded concurrently by the Rent Controller as also by the Appellate Authority qua rate of rent as also qua the period of arrears of rent, do not call for any interference. As such, affirming the impugned orders of the Rent Controller dated 8.8.1997 (Annexure P-1) as also of the Appellate Authority dated 2.3.2000 (Annexure P-2), this petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. ………………….