JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - This is a defendant's revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act and arises out of a suit instituted by the opposite party for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and for ejectment from the house forming subject-matter of the suit. 2. A suit was filed on the allegations that the plaintiff was landlord of the house while the defendant was the tenant thereof, that he had fallen in arrears of rent and despite a notice of demand and ejectment had failed to comply with it. According to the plaintiff the house had been constructed prior to the coming into force of T.P. Act XIII of 1972 and consequently that Act had no application. The suits was resisted by the defendant on various pleas. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- (1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try to this suit ? (2) Whether the suit accommodation was constructed in the year 1969 and provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 do not apply ? (3) Whether there was any such agreement between the parties as alleged in para 12 of the written statement ? If so, has the defendant spent any amount on the repairs and renovation of the suit accommodation ? Its effect ? (4) Whether the notice to quit served upon the defendant is invalid ? (5) Whether the notice served by the plaintiff has been waived ? (6) At what rate the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for use and occupation, if any, from the defendant ? (7) Whether the defendant has paid any water charges in excess ? If so, what amount and to what effect ? (8) Relief. 3. Issue No. 1 was not pressed before the trial Court and was consequently decided in favour of the plaintiff. While deciding issue No. 2 the trial Court came to the conclusion, on the evidence led before it that the suit constructions had been made in the year 1968 and consequently U.P. Act XIII of 1972 had no application. While deciding issue No. 3 which arose because of a claim made by the defendant that he had spent an amount of about Rs. While deciding issue No. 3 which arose because of a claim made by the defendant that he had spent an amount of about Rs. 8,000/- in order to make the house habitable and there was an agreement between the parties that the defendant will be entitled to be re-imbursed for the expenses, the trial Court held that the agreement set up by the defendant had not been proved. The notice of ejectment, Ext. 15, was held to be valid. Issue No. 5 arose because of a claim made by the defendant that he was entitled to adjust an amount of one month's rent per year for re-decoration or whitewashing etc., as a result of agreement between the parties. The Court below held that in fact the defendant had spent no amount over whitewashing etc., and consequently was not entitled to be re-imbursed for any amount assuming that there was an agreement as claimed by him. The plaintiff's assertion that he was entitled to claim damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month was repelled by the trial Court and it was held that the plaintiff could claim damages for use and occupation only at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month which was the agreed rent. While deciding issue No. 7', the trial Court held that the defendant had failed to prove that he had paid any excess water charges and consequently issue No. 7 was decided in the negative and against the defendant. In the result, the suit for ejectment of the defendant-applicant was decreed. The defendant was given four months' time to vacate the accommodation in dispute failing which the plaintiff was declared to take possession through Court. The claim of the landlord of Rs. 1,020/- as arrears of rent for the period from 1st July, 1975 to 8th September, 1975 was also decreed. The plaintiff was also held entitled to recover pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month on payment of the requisite Court fee in the Execution Department. Costs were awarded against the defendants. Aggrieved by the decree of the Court below, the defendant has filed this revision. 4. The plaintiff was also held entitled to recover pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month on payment of the requisite Court fee in the Execution Department. Costs were awarded against the defendants. Aggrieved by the decree of the Court below, the defendant has filed this revision. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant firstly that while deciding the question as to when the suit constructions came into existence, the Court below was bound to take into account the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. In support of his contention, he cited a decision of this Court which to my mind, has no bearing. In the instant case, plaintiff while in the witness box made a categorical statement that the building in dispute had been constructed in the year 1968. His statement remained un-challenged in cross-examination. The defendant gave no evidence in rebuttal and satisfied himself by merely stating in the written statement that he did not accept the claim of the plaintiff that the building had been constructed in 1968 and was not subject to the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972. Under the circumstances, the Court below was perfectly justified in accepting the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff and holding that the house had been constructed in the year 1968 and the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 were not constructed to it. 5. Learned counsel then tried to canvass that issue No. 5 had not been correctly decided by the Court below and in support of his contention, he drew my attention to the replication filed by the plaintiff copy of which was filed as an annexure to an affidavit filed by the defendant. There is nothing in the replication to justify the contention that there was any admission by the plaintiff that the defendant could adjust an amount equal to one month's rent per year irrespective of the question as to whether he had spent any amount over the repairs and whitewashing etc., or not. 6. The revision has no merit and is hereby dismissed. The opposite party will be entitled to his costs from the applicant. The interim order dated 17th of September, 1976 is hereby recalled. 6. The revision has no merit and is hereby dismissed. The opposite party will be entitled to his costs from the applicant. The interim order dated 17th of September, 1976 is hereby recalled. The record shall be sent to the Court below at a very early date to enable to the execution proceeding to continue.