JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the revisionists. 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. This revision has arisen from judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Special), Baghpat in S.C.C. Suit No.03 of 2000, whereagainst under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1887"), revisionists-State has come before this Court. 4. It is stated that building in question was attached by Income Tax Department on account of recovery of arrears from Ashok Kumar, but this fact is not disputed that even after attachment, applicant-revisionists continued to occupy building in question as tenant. That being so, rent was paid to Income Tax Department. However, Court below has found that there was no order passed by Income Tax Department directing revisionists to pay rent to them. In absence of any such order passed by Income Tax Department under some statutory provision, it was not open to revisionists to deny payment of rent to landlord. Therefore, default in payment of rent has rightly been found by Court below. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not point of any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error justifying interference by this Court in the impugned order. 6. Dismissed.