JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th November, 1985 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages filed by opposite party, Sardar Uttam Singh, against Sri Mahesh Lalwani in respect of House No. 127/4B, Chaulakhi behind Nishat Cinema, 5, Bisheshwar Nath Road, Lucknow. 2. The above premises were let out by the plaintiff, Sardar Uttam Sirgh to Sri Mahesh Lalwani on the monthly rent of Rs 500. The defendant fell in arrears of rent since 1st November, 1981. A notice dated 811983 for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of the premises in question was served on the defendant on 1111983. The defendant did not comply with the notice and the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment and for damages for use and occupation of the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 75 per day from 1221983 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendantrevisionist. In the suit, plaintiff had claimed arrears of rent for the period from 1111981 to 1121983 at the rate of Rs. 500 per month and for the damages for the use and occupation for the period from 1121983 to 15583 the date of the filing of the suit at the rate of Rs. 75 per day. The damages for use and occupation till the date of eviction were also claimed. 3. This suit was contested by the defendantrevisionist. It was asserted by him that the premises in question are governed by the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972), for short 'the Act', and, as such, the defendant is not liable to ejectment from the premises in question. It was asserted by the defendant that there were no arrears of rent outstanding against him and that he was not liable to ejectment and the plaintiff was not entitled to get damages for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute in occupation of the defendant at the rate of Rs. 75 per day. He asserted to have deposited sum of Rs. 1500 as security with the plaintiff which could not be forfeited. 75 per day. He asserted to have deposited sum of Rs. 1500 as security with the plaintiff which could not be forfeited. It was further asserted that the premises in question were not constructed from the alleged loan taken from the U.P. Avas Avam Vikas Parishad, but the premises in question were constructed in the year 1972 and not in the year 1974. The facts relating to the payment of rent, as averred in the written statement, are mentioned in detail in the impugned order and the same need not be repeated. 4. After taking evidence of parties, learned Court below decreed the suit for ejectment and also for arrears of rent for the period from 1111982 to 1121983 at the rate of Rs. 500 per month together with 12% interest thereon and for damages for the use and occupation for the period from 1121983 till the date of ejectment on the payment of additional Courtfee, at the rate of Rs. 50 per day. The amount of Rs. 1500 which was lying with the plaintiff as security amount deposited by the defendant, was directed to be adjusted towards the decretal amount. Aggrieved by it, the defendantrevisionist has preferred this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant Sri P.N. Mathur urged that the Court below has erred in holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, do not apply to the present premises as the same was got constructed by the plaintiff out of the funds obtained by way of loan from the Uttar Pradesh Avas Avam Vikas Parishad. Learned counsel for the applicant further urged that there was no conclusive evidence to the effect that the building in question was constructed by the plaintiff substantially out of the funds obtained as loan from the said Parishad. The Court below thus erred in holding that the; provisions of the said Act do not apply to the premises in question. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite party Sri Umesh CHandra, referred to a document which is a notice issued by the Assistant Housing Commissioner (Loans), of the Uttar Pradesh Avas Avam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow. This notice is dated 29101975. This receipt indicates that a sum of Rs. 14,500 was advanced to the plaintiff by way of loan for constructing a house. This amount was payable in three hundred and thirty three monthly installments of Rs. 96.40. This notice is dated 29101975. This receipt indicates that a sum of Rs. 14,500 was advanced to the plaintiff by way of loan for constructing a house. This amount was payable in three hundred and thirty three monthly installments of Rs. 96.40. It is further mentioned in this notice that amount of Rs. 601.87 was due against the plaintiff on 31101975 which was required to be paid within two weeks from the date of service of the notice and that he should pay regularly the aforesaid monthly installment amount, failing which interest was charged thereon at the stipulated rate which is mentioned in the notice. This document clearly establishes that a loan was taken by the plaintiff from the Avas Avam Vikas Parishad for constructing the house. Learned Court below has referred to the evidence on this point and has recorded a finding that the plaintiff had constructed the premise; in suit out of the funds obtained from the U.P. Avas Avam Vikas Parishad by way of loan. Thus in view of the Proviso to subsection (2) of Section 2, the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972, do not apply to the present case. The construction of the building was completed in the year 1974 and its first assessment was made in that year. Thus in view of the aforesaid Proviso to sub section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, the premises in question will not be governed by the provisions of Rent Control Act and I do not find any substance in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel. 7. Learned counsel has next contended that the Court below has erred in awarding damages of use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 50 per day from 1221983 onwards. His contention was that in respect of the premises under tenancy of the defendant the damages for use and occupation should not exceed more than a monthly rate of rent. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dwarika Prasad v. Central Talkies (AIR 1956 Alld 187), wherein the damages for the use and occupation of the premises were claimed and decreed at the rate of Rs. 1500 per month although the defendant was paying Rs. 550 as monthly rent of the premises in his occupation. 1500 per month although the defendant was paying Rs. 550 as monthly rent of the premises in his occupation. It was urged that the Court below erred in passing a decree for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1500. This contention was upheld and it was observed: ......the damages which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant in the suit should be equal to such amount which the defendant could have realised as rent of the premises. The amount which the landlord can be said to get from the premises in suit would be equal to the maximum permissible rent under the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, and he is not entitled to anything more under the guise of damages on the alleged basis of high offers of rent to him by persons who may not have any chance of getting an allotment made in their favour. 8. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises in question were let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500. He, however, urged that since the premises in question were not governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and, as such, the damages which the plaintiff was entitled to get, would be the amount which he had claimed in the notice for the damages and occupation in respect of the premises in question, I do not find any merit in this contention and I am of opinion that the damages which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant in the suit should be equal to such amount which the plaintiff was realising as rent of the premises from the defendant. No excess amount could be awarded by way of penalty for nonacceptance of the notice for ejectment. The premises in question may not be governed by the provisions of Rent Control Act but the amount which the plaintifflandlord would be entitled to get from the defendant, would be equal to the monthly rent which the plaintiff was realising from the defendant. The learned Court below has thus erred in passing a decree for damages for use and occupation of the premises for the period from 1221983 onwards at the rate of RS. 50 per day. This part of the decree deserves to be set aside. The learned Court below has thus erred in passing a decree for damages for use and occupation of the premises for the period from 1221983 onwards at the rate of RS. 50 per day. This part of the decree deserves to be set aside. The plaintiff would be entitled to get decree for damages for use and occupation of the premises in suit for the period from 1221983 till the date of his ejectment only at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. So far as the decree for arrears of rent for the period from 11181 to 1121983 is concerned, the rent at the rate of Rs. 500 per month is maintained as nothing could be shown by the defendantapplicant that the rent for that period was paid by him to the plaintiff. 9. Learned counsel had, however, urged that the plaintiff would not be entitled to get interest at the rate of Rs. 12% on the decreed arrears of rent as there exists no contractual agreement for the same. Alternatively, it was urged that even otherwise the rate of interest as awarded by the learned Court below is excessive. In reply, learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that even in the absence of any contractual obligation regarding payment of rent as arrears of rent, the learned Court below has rightly awarded interest on the decretal amount of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs 12% per annum which could validly be done under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. The aforesaid Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where and insofar as a decree is for the payment of money, the Court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the Court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged, from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for anyperiod prior to the institution of the suit with further interest at such rate not exceeding six percent, per annum as the Court deems reasonable on such principal sum, from the date of the decree to the date of payment, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit. 11. 11. Interest for a period prior to the commencement of suit is claimable either under an agreement or usage of trade or under a statutory provision or under the Interest Act, for a sum certain where notice is given. Interest is also awarded in recovery of damages for wrongful detention of money, vide B.N. Railway Co. Ltd. v. Buttanji Ramji ( AIR 1955 SC 468 ) and in Union of India v. Rallia Ram (AIR 1963 P. 1685). Also see Union of India v. Watkinson Mayor and Co. ( AIR 1966 SC 395 ). 12. In the instant case no agreement about payment of interest was made, nor was it implied. The notice which was given also did not specify the claim with regard to it nor any specific sum in that behalf was demanded, and, therefore, the Interest Act does not apply. However, interest could be awarded by Court while passing money decree in respect of outstanding arrears of rent on equitable consideration in accordance with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure referred to above. 13. Thus in view of the above provision I find that the Court below could pass a decree regarding payment of interest at such rate as may be deemed reasonable on the decretal amount of arrears of rent. 14. Learned counsel for the defendantapplicant had, however, urged that the interest awarded at the rate of Rs. 12% is excessive and no reason has been assigned for passing a decree at that rate of interest. I find substance in this argument. In reply learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that the Nationalised Banks charge 12% of interest on the advances made by them, and as such, he learned Court below has not committed any error in awarding an interest at the rate of 12 per cent. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. The second Proviso to Section 34 of the Code relates to rent charged by the Nationalised Banks on commercial transactions. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party. The second Proviso to Section 34 of the Code relates to rent charged by the Nationalised Banks on commercial transactions. It is, no doubt, correct to say that the Nationalised Banks charge 12 per cent interest on the advances made by them, but since such interest is charged on the commercial transactions, and, as such, it does not appear to be appropriate nor it appears to be just and proper to award interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the decreed arrears of rent. In my opinion, the interest, in all fairness, should have been awarded at the rate of 6 per cent on the decreed arrears of rent for the period from 1111981 to 1121983. Thus, the decree should have been passed for arrears of rent at the rate of 6% per annum on the decreed arrears of rent for the said period. The decree regarding interest chargeable at 12% on the decreed arrears of rent deserves to be modified and it is accordingly modified and the interest is awarded on the decreed arrears of rent for the said period at the rate of 6% per annum. 15. Learned counsel for the defendantapplicant had urged that he had made certain deposits regarding arrears of rent etc. in the Court below and also a sum of Rs 1500 as security to the plaintiff. These amounts will be adjusted towards the decretal amount. No other point is raised or pressed. 16. In the result this revision succeeds and is partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18111985 is modified as above. The plaintiff's suit for ejectment in respect of the premises in question together with the arrears of rent for the period 1111981 to 1121983 at the rate of Rs. 500 together with interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum and also for damages for use and occupation for a period from 12283 till the date of ejectment at the rate of Rs. 500 per month is decreed. The amount of Rs. 1500, lying with the plaintiff as security will be adjusted towards payment of decretal amount. The other amount deposited by the defendant in the Court below and also in this Court, if any, shall also be adjusted towards payment of decretal amount. 500 per month is decreed. The amount of Rs. 1500, lying with the plaintiff as security will be adjusted towards payment of decretal amount. The other amount deposited by the defendant in the Court below and also in this Court, if any, shall also be adjusted towards payment of decretal amount. The stay order dated 16121985, is hereby vacated. 17. Learned counsel for the revisionist has prayed that he be Allowed two months time to vacate the premises in question. The decree will, therefore, not be put under execution prior to 12th February, 1987 provided the petitioner furnishes undertaking before the trial Court within three weeks, from today that he will deliver vacant possession of the premises in question, to the plaintiff and pay the decretal amount by 12th February, 1987. In case the undertaking is not furnished within the time allowed, the plaintiff will be at liberty to execute the decree. Parties shall bear their own costs of the suit as well as of this revision. (Revision partly allowed.)