JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent as owner and landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 15 of 2007 for arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he has defaulted in the payment of rent since 1993. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that there is no defalut and that he has paid entire monthly rent upto December 2007. 3. The court for first instance vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 held that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the shop in dispute. There is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The rent of the shop is Rs. 150/- per month. It further held that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has tendered or deposited rent @ Rs. 150/- per month after 2005. The aforesaid judgment and order has been affirmed by the revisional court vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2013 and it has been held that as the petitioner has failed to prove that any deposit has been made by him under Section 20(4) of the Act, he is not entitle to avoid the decree of eviction. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent never used to give the rent receipts and that the petitioner has actually paid rent upto December 2007 but the court below has erred in taking a contrary view. 5. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the payment of rent, in as much as, rent receipts were not issued. Therefore, the court below has to fall upon the oral evidence adduced by the parties. The burden to prove that the rent has been paid is upon the petitioner who alleges the same. 6. Petitioner in his statement has stated that he has paid rent to Chandra Pal, the father of the present manager Mahendra Pal and that thereafter he has not paid any rent. The father of the present manager had died in 2005 and therefore the courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to pay rent atleast since 1.1.2006. 7. The father of the present manager had died in 2005 and therefore the courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to pay rent atleast since 1.1.2006. 7. It may be noted that Chandra Pal, father of the present manager had died in 2005 though the exact date of death has not come on record but the death in 2005 is not disputed. 8. In view of the above, the petitioner was in arrears of rent for more than four months from the date of institution of the suit and is liable for eviction. He could have avoided the decree of eviction, if he had paid the entire arrears of rent etc. on or before the first date of hearing in view of Section 20 (4) of the Act but the petitioner failed to prove that any rent as such has been deposited by him. Therefore, the court below concurrently held that the petitioner is not entitle to avoid the decree of eviction under Section 20 (4) of the Act. 9. I find no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the courts below. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.