JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Shyam Singh Sengar, learned counsel for revisionist and perused the record. 2. This revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1887") has arisen from judgment dated 16.5.2006 passed by Sri Sukhbir Singh Rana, Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 64 of 2005 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits etc. 3. It is contended that revisionist has specifically pleaded that Smt. Radha Mishra, plaintiff, was not landlord, and, therefore, she was not entitled for payment of rent by defendant. It is, however, not in dispute that there was a documentary evidence, i.e., the receipt showing that rent was paid by revisionist-respondent to Smt. Radha Mishra for the period of November' 2003 to January' 2004 and in this regard finding of fact recorded by Court below reads as under: ^^izfroknh us uoEcj 03 ls tuojh 04 rd dk fdjk;k oknh jk/kk feJk dks fn;k Fkk vkSj mldh jlhn izfroknh fdjk;snkj dks nh x;h Fkh vkSj jlhn dh Nk;kizfr lwph 14 x ls nkf[ky dh x;h vkSj izfroknh bl izdkj okfnuh dk fdjk;snkj gSA** "Defendant paid rent to the plaintiff Radha Mishra for the period November'03 to January'04 and its receipt was given to the tenant and photocopy of receipt was filed vide List-14C and thus defendant is tenant of plaintiff." (English Translation by the Court) 4. Counsel for revisionist could not show that aforesaid finding or the evidence relied by Court below is perverse or there is some misreading or the same is otherwise not in accordance with law. In view thereof, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order impugned in this revision warranting interference. 5. The revision is dismissed. 6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 7. Certify this order to the Lower Court immediately.