JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. The appellant filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a building on the ground that the building was not covered by U.P. Act No. III of 1947, and the defendant's tenancy having been terminated, he was liable to be ejected as such. During the pendency of the suit the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was enforced on 15th of July, 1972. Under Section 39 of the Act aforesaid the defendant deposited Rs. 2109-67 p. on 28-7-1972. This covered the rent from 1-4-1968 to 31st July, 1972 and interest and costs. The rent was at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. The learned counsel has contended that this deposit was not for the entire amount as something more was due. The learned counsel relied upon Section 7 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and argued that under Section 7 the tenant was liable to pay water-tax as a part of rent. As the water-tax was not deposited, the suit was liable to be decreed and the full rent could not be said to have been deposited. This argument seems to be misconceived. The Act itself came into force on 15th of July, 1972 and no question of any water-tax being taken as part of rent arose before 15th July, 1972. The rent could have been increased by the aforesaid amount only after the commencement of the Act. The Act contemplated a deposit of the dues till the date of the commencement of the Act under Section 39 within one month from that date. Obviously no question of depositing any water-tax arose nor water-tax for the period prior to the commencement of the Act could be claimed as a part of the rent. 2. The second argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that 25 per cent was permitted to be enhanced by Section 5, that argument again is not tenable. Section 5 contemplates that the rent is to be enhanced within three months of the commencement of the Act by giving notice to the tenant. There is absolutely no averment or evidence on the record to show that any such notice enhancing the rent was issued. Section 5 contemplates that the rent is to be enhanced within three months of the commencement of the Act by giving notice to the tenant. There is absolutely no averment or evidence on the record to show that any such notice enhancing the rent was issued. Assuming that the notice was issued, that could be effective only after expiry of three months after the commencement of the Act and not before. However, in the instant case the learned counsel has not argued that any such notice was issued. Consequently the second plea cannot succeed. 3. The third argument of the learned counsel was that there was a Kothri on the upper floor for which he has claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 5/-. The finding of the trial court on issues 2, 3 and 4 shows that it was held that the Kothri was the part of the accommodation in tenancy of the defendant and it was not illegally occupied by the tenant. Consequently the case of damages was negatived and could not have been claimed by the plaintiff. 4. The last argument of the learned counsel was that Section 39 was not applicable in the instant case as the defendant has pleaded in paragraph 16 of the written statement that the suit was barred under Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. III of 1947. A reference may be made to the relevant para in the plaint itself. It has been alleged in the plaint that the disputed constructions were made after 31st of December, 1951. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it has been mentioned that the constructions were made in the year 1952 and the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not applicable to the premises. Issue No. 1 was framed by the trial court on that point. The finding on that issue was that the building aforesaid was constructed after 1950 and the provision of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 was not applicable to it, that finding has not been challenged in appeal by the plaintiff. Under the circumstances the matter seems to have been concluded by issue No. 1 that Section 39 would be applicable to the premises. 5. In the result, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.