JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. – Present revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.6.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.- 13, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 60 of 2008 (Smt. Laxmi Verma v. Vinod Kumar Verma), by which suit for eviction of defendant (present revisionist) and realisation of arrears of rent and damages was decreed. 2. Original SCC suit was filed by plaintiff with averment that she is owner and land-lord of house number 43/18 Dhobi Mohal, Kanpur Nagar. She had inducted the defendant Vinod Kumar Verma as tenant in a shop situated on first floor of this house in a rent of Rs. 236/- per month. From 31.3.2004, this rent was enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per month, but defendant had not paid rent since 1.4.2004. Therefore the plaintiff had sent registered legal notice dated 27.2.2008 for termination of tenancy of defendant which was served on him, but he had not replied the said notice. So tenancy of defendant was terminated w.e.f 25.4.2008. Thereafter plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against defendant. 3. In written-statement, the defendant had admitted the land-lordship of plaintiff and accepted that he was doing business in disputed shop as a tenant for the rent of Rs. 236/- per month. The said rent was never enhanced. When plaintiff had refused to accept the rent, then defendant had sent it by money-order which was refused by plaintiff, so said rent is deposited in Court under Section-30 of U.P. Act No. 13/1972. No notice sent by plaintiff was served on defendant. The plaintiff has no cause of action. Her suit is based on incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed. 4. In trial court, parties were afforded opportunity of adducing evidences. The plaintiff had examined PW-1 Smt. Laxmi Verma and PW-2 Hari Om. Defendant side had examined DW-1- Vinod Verma and DW-2 Sunita Verma. After affording opportunity of hearing, the trial court had passed impugned judgment dated 10.6.2010. In this judgment, trial court had framed seven points of determination, out of which first four were relating to rate of tenancy, alleged default in payment of rent by defendant, service of legal notice dated 27.2.2008 of termination of tenancy given by plaintiff to defendant and as to whether defendant was entitled for any protection of provision of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After considering the evidences, trial court had passed impugned judgment, by which all above mentioned points of determination were decided in favour of plaintiff-respondent and against defendant-revisionist, and order of eviction of defendant and relief of recovery of rent and damages, as prayed in the plaint, was granted to the plaintiff. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of trial court dated 10.6.2010, present revision has been preferred by defendant of the original suit. 6. Earlier ownership and land-lordship of plaintiff of disputed premises, the tenancy of defendant-revisionist in said premises, earlier rate of rent being Rs. 236/- per month has been admitted facts between the parties. The points in dispute were as to whether rate of rent was enhanced from Rs. 236/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month, and whether the plaintiff has been defaulter in payment of said rent due to which his tenancy was terminated, and as to whether the notice of termination of tenancy was served on defendant. This has also to be considered as to whether defendant-revisionist is entitled for any protection under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13/1972). 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that initial rate of rent was Rs. 236/- but plaintiff had failed to prove that there had been any enhancement of rent, so his suit is liable to be dismissed. He further pleaded that rent can be enhanced only under Section 9 of Rent Control Act and since no such proceeding was carried out, therefore the plaintiff's case of enhancement of rent should not be accepted. He further submitted that there is no proof of service of legal notice allegedly sent by plaintiff to defendant, so tenancy of defendant-revisionist cannot be treated as terminated. He further submitted that since all the agreed rent was deposited in the Court on first date of hearing, therefore, he should be granted for protection under Section 20(4) of Rent Control Act and should not be evicted. 8. The arguments of revisionist side were refuted by counsel for the respondent who contended that during oral examination and cross-examination, the plaintiff himself had admitted that enhanced rate of rent was Rs. 1,000/- per month, which was not paid by him. 8. The arguments of revisionist side were refuted by counsel for the respondent who contended that during oral examination and cross-examination, the plaintiff himself had admitted that enhanced rate of rent was Rs. 1,000/- per month, which was not paid by him. He further submitted that for termination of tenancy of defendant, legal notice was sent which was rightly held served by lower court as service by refusal of registered legal notice, and there is no evidence that such endorsement of refusal of registered notice was incorrect. He further submitted that alleged admitted rent was not deposited by defendant on first date of hearing because the suit was filed on 29.4.2008, and the first date of hearing was 1.7.2008; on or before that date no deposit was made and no application to that effect was moved by plaintiff. The belated application 16-C was moved on 30.8.2008, in which defendant had only informed that he proposes to deposit rent with tax but had not informed that at what rate he proposes to deposit rent and how much amount is being proposed to be deposited. Even permission for deposition was not sought from the Court by defendant, therefore he is not entitled for any relief under the provision of Order 15, Rule 5 CPC or of Section 20(4) of Rent Control Act. Therefore, his revision should be dismissed. 9. First main point relates to rate of rent, and on this point parties had adduced evidences. Trial court had reached to its conclusions on basis of evidences adduce by both parties. During cross-examination, the defendant-revisionist as DW-1 had given such statement which amounted that rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per month but enhanced rent was not deposited by him. In this regard, trial court had not only meticulously scrutinised evidences but also quoted the statement in his impugned judgment in which defendant had made admission of enhanced rent and its non-payment. The finding of trial court on point of enhanced rent @ Rs.1,000/- per month is based on appreciation of evidence. The finding to that effect is such that may be one of the logical conclusion of adduced evidences. Such findings cannot be interfered in revision on the ground that on the basis of same evidences, there may also be probability of different finding, other than one given by the trial court. The finding to that effect is such that may be one of the logical conclusion of adduced evidences. Such findings cannot be interfered in revision on the ground that on the basis of same evidences, there may also be probability of different finding, other than one given by the trial court. Therefore, the finding of trial court about enhanced rate of rent of Rs. 1,000/- cannot be interfered in revision. 10. It was never stated by the defendant-revisionist as to how much amount of rent and how much amount of interest etc. was deposited by him in court for seeking benefit of Section 20(4) of Rent Control Act. In fact from the available evidences, it was proved that admitted unpaid rent was not deposited by defendant on or before first date of hearing, nor any permission was normally sought for from the court to deposit such rent. The first date of hearing was 1.7.2008 and till that date no such admitted rent or its interest etc. was deposited, as rightly described in the impugned judgment by trial court. So, revisionist appears no entitle the protection of Section 20(4) of Rent Control Act. 11. Apart from it, it has been proved that rate of rent of period in question was Rs. 1,000/- per month. The defendant-revisionist had deposited the some amount in court but never stated to have deposited at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The alleged deposition is stated to be at the rate of Rs. 236/- per month, the exact detail of which was never made available to trial court. Therefore, trial court had rightly held that defendant is not entitled for protection of Order-XV, Rule 5 CPC or of Section 20(4) of Rent Control Act. This finding is found correct and is hereby confirmed. 12. So far as the service of notice dated 27.2.2008 sent by plaintiff/respondent to defendant/revisionist for termination of tenancy is concerned, there was evidence before the trial court that said registered legal notice had been served by refusal with endorsement “refused”. The trial court had rightly held that defendant had not proved that this endorsement of refusal of legal notice was forged or erroneous. Therefore, service of notice of plaintiff for termination of tenancy of defendant was correctly served on defendant/revisionist by trial court. There appears no factual legal or jurisdictional error in this regard. 13. The trial court had rightly held that defendant had not proved that this endorsement of refusal of legal notice was forged or erroneous. Therefore, service of notice of plaintiff for termination of tenancy of defendant was correctly served on defendant/revisionist by trial court. There appears no factual legal or jurisdictional error in this regard. 13. Discussing the evidences adduced before it, the trial court had held that by factual evidences the plaintiff-respondent had properly proved its case before trial court, therefore his suit was liable to be decreed for relief claimed. The finding for reaching on its conclusion given by trial court was based on proper appreciation of evidence. The findings of trial court are such which may be sensible conclusion on the basis of such evidences. There appears no infirmity, error or perversity that may require exercise of revisional jurisdiction for interference in such finding of fact. The judgment of lower court is based on proper appreciation of fact and law. There appears no legal, procedural, factual or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment that may require interference through present revision. 14. For the reasons discussed above, this revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.