JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 31.08.2016 passed in SCC Suit No. 15 of 2011. This suit was filed for arrears of rent, eviction and damages. 3. The case of plaintiff was that the tenant had been inducted in the year 1999 and a rent agreement was executed between the parties, which provided that the rent would be enhanced by 10% each year. The tenant being is arrears, his tenancy was terminated by a notice and thereafter the suit was filed. 4. The tenant revisionist contested the proceedings on the ground that there was no written rent agreement. It was also alleged that he was not in default and had paid rent till 2011 to the father of the plaintiff. For the past three years, no rent receipts had been issued on the ground that fresh receipts were required to be printed. The benefit of Section 20 of sub-section (4) was also liable to be granted to him. 5. It is admitted that the alleged rent agreement was never filed on record. 6. However, relying upon the statement of the plaintiff and his witness, the case set up in the plaint has been accepted. This was done on the reasoning that although the tenant admitted that rent receipts had not been issued for the past three years alone, but since, he was a tenant since 1999, earlier receipts is his possession were also not filed. In case the earlier receipts had been filed, the case of the landlord about enhancement of the rent by 10% each year would have been established, thus drawing an adverse inference on account of the revisionist not having filed the earlier rent receipts. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality in the reasoning given by the court below. 8. Even otherwise, the findings as to the rent of the accommodation in question, is a pure finding of fact, which cannot be assailed or upset in a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. 9. It is not the case of the tenant-revisionist, that any material evidence available on record has escaped consideration, which would render the finding of fact, perverse. 10. 9. It is not the case of the tenant-revisionist, that any material evidence available on record has escaped consideration, which would render the finding of fact, perverse. 10. The next contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the order has been passed on presumptions. I do not find any substance in this argument, especially in view of what has been stated in the earlier part of this order. 11. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in question. 13. The revisionist may, therefore, file the usual undertaking before the court below within a period of three weeks from today, stating that he shall handover peaceful vacant possession to the opposite party, on or before 9th April, 2017. 14. Along with the undertaking, the revisionist shall also furnish a bank draft for the rent for these four months, calculated at the rate of Rs.2070/- per month. 15. In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the revisionist shall not be entitled to any benefit under this order and it will be open for the respondent to execute the eviction order passed against the revisionist, forthwith. 16. Subject to the above, this revision is dismissed.