JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Swatantra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Cause shown for delay in filing revision is sufficient. Delay in filing revision is hereby condoned. The application for condonation of delay stands allowed. As requested by learned counsel for the revisionist, I proceeded to hear the revision for admission today itself. 3. Against judgment and decree dated 13.9.2007 passed by Ist Addional District Judge, Jhansi dismissing revisionist's S.C.C.Suit No.1 of 1997 this revision has been preferred under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887. 4. The Court below has recorded three findings of fact, firstly that there were two contracts and under the first one, two shops were let out and one shop was let out to by another, secondly; revisionist could neither prove rent Rs.1,500/- per month nor could prove that both found part of common agreement and thirdly; it has also been noted that a valid quit notice was never served upon respondent. For none of the aforesaid aspects, counsel for the revisionist could point out any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment. It cannot be said that Court below has not proceeded in accordance with law which may justify interference by this Court in this revision. 5. Dismissed.