Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30650 Court No. - 4 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 132 of 2014 Revisionist :- Arjun Dev Polpali Opposite Party :- Prem Sagar Kansal Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Dixit,Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki,Madan Lal Rai,Ramesh Kumar Pandey,Samrat Vikram Singh,V. Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K.Solanki, learned counsel for the respondents. This revision petition is directed against the order of Judge Small Cause whereby he has decreed the suit of the landlord respondent for ejectment of the petitioner and recovery of arrears of rent for the period between December, 2007 and December, 2010. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was not at all in arrears of rent and yet findings have come to be returned that petitioner was in arrears of rent, and therefore, judgment of eviction is liable to be reversed. It is submitted that the controversy regarding deposit of rent in respect of erstwhile owner was not there, however, in respect of the present owner, upon notice being issued, service of which though was disputed but rent was deposited in the year 2010 and thereafter rent was being continuously deposited. Upon repeated query being made as to whether at any point of time any amount regarding arrears was deposited for the period running from December 2007 till March, 2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on record there is no material available however, he sought to submit that from 2010 onwards rent has been regularly deposited. It is submitted that though rent was earlier paid, no receipt was issued and this statement has come to be very well made by the tenant in his testimony, however, learned counsel for the petitioner could not place any material in support of the testimony so made. So it is a case of oral testimony against on oral testimony . Once notice has come to be issued at the admitted address of which there is no denial, service of notice was liable to be taken as sufficient and I find that suit itself was instituted on the basis of notice that petitioner was in arrears since 2002 to 2010. In the circumstances, therefore, the burden lay heavily upon tenant to prove that he deposited rent to the landlord and a mere statement that landlord did not issue any receipt though rent was deposited would not suffice the need of cogent evidence to prove pleadings. The bona fide of the petitioner could have been established by him by depositing entire arrears in the year 2010 when he started depositing rent under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972, however, there is no evidence on record that any such arrears was deposited at any point of time. In such above view, the finding returned by the Judge, Small Causes regarding default in payment of rent and consequently non payment arrears of rent does not suffer from any manifest error of law so to warrant interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad