JUDGMENT S. U. Khan, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the tenant against whom suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent filed by plaintiff/respondents (S.C.C. Suit No. 279 of 1987 was decreed by Addl. J.S.C.C., Allahabad through judgment and decree dated 6.8.1998. Petitioner filed revision against the same being S.C.C. Revision No. 1099 of 1998. The said revision has been dismissed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad through judgment and order dated 25.11.2002. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment. 2. Both the courts below have held that building was constructed in the year 1978, hence provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable as the suit had been filed within 9 years from the date of construction. The suit was filed after terminating the tenancy of the tenant through notice under Section 106, T. P. Act. 3. The findings with regard to date/time of construction recorded by the courts below are basically finding of fact, which do not suffer from any such illegality, which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not seriously challenged those findings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued out that even though U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable, however, tenant/petitioner could not be evicted as in terms of Section 114, T. P. Act at the hearing of the suit, he deposited the entire rent along with interest and cost of the suit. In my opinion, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Section 114, T. P. Act states, “Where the lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent.” In the instant case, rent note was executed by the tenant. There were no provisions in the rent note that tenancy would determined by forfeiture of non-payment of rent for certain period. The authority of Supreme Court 2002 ACJ 1453, is cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention. As far as the said authority is concerned it dealt with Punjab Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court while pointing out a peculiar lacuna of the said Act referred to Section 114 of the T. P. Act. Fortunately Section 20 (4) of U. P. Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) does not contain such lacuna. As far as the said authority is concerned it dealt with Punjab Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court while pointing out a peculiar lacuna of the said Act referred to Section 114 of the T. P. Act. Fortunately Section 20 (4) of U. P. Rent Control Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) does not contain such lacuna. The Supreme Court has not held that where Rent Control Act does not apply and where the lease is not determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent, Section 114 of T. P. Act will apply. The Supreme Court has held in para 20, “the discretion conferred by Section 114 of T. P. Act is of wide amplitude guided by principles of justice, equity and good conscience and the Court would examine the conduct of the parties”. The Supreme Court referred to Section 114, T. P. Act for the purpose to show that under the said section, Court had discretion to extend the time for deposit and to condone minor short-fall in the deposit, hence the same power must be available to rent controller under the relevant provision of Punjab Rent Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited another authority of this Court in Surjit Singh v. A.D.J., 1993 (2) ARC 470. The said authority supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in my opinion, it does not lay down correct law and is per-incuriam. Paras 6 and 7 of the said authority is quoted below : “(6) Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the revisional court was (sic) upheld the finding that the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable then the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act become applicable automatically. In support of this contention he has relied upon a decision in Arjun Khiamal Makhijani v. Jamandas C. Tuliani, 1989 SCFBRC 500 : AIR 1989 SC 1599 ). According to it Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act applies to that case where a lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent. In support of this contention he has relied upon a decision in Arjun Khiamal Makhijani v. Jamandas C. Tuliani, 1989 SCFBRC 500 : AIR 1989 SC 1599 ). According to it Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act applies to that case where a lease of immovable property has been determined by forfeiture for non-payment of rent. (7) Applying the same principle in the instant case I am of the view that since the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable the petitioner was entitled for the relief as contemplated under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.” 5. Unfortunately, in the aforesaid 1989 Supreme Court authority, no such point was involved. The said authority has not even mentioned Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, let alone discuss its application. 6. The matter may be looked from another angle. If a Rent Control Act does not apply, then suit for ejectment may be filed and decreed after termination of tenancy under Section 106 of T. P. Act even though tenant may not be defaulter and no relief regarding payment of rent may have been claimed in the suit. However, in case the tenant is also defaulter, then the relief for recovery of arrears of rent may also be included in the suit. This relief will be in the nature of additional relief having got absolutely no concern with other relief of ejectment. In such situation, relief for recovery of arrears of rent will not at all be dependant upon relief of ejectment. It does not appeal to reason as to why a non-defaulter tenant of buildings not covered by Rent Control Act must be liable to ejectment after termination of tenancy while a defaulter tenant of such building in such situation shall not be liable to ejectment if he deposits the rent on the first date of hearing of the suit. Taking analogy from Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it may be observed that only when the suit is filed on the ground of default, the tenant is entitled to avoid the ejectment by depositing rent, etc. on the first date of hearing. Taking analogy from Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it may be observed that only when the suit is filed on the ground of default, the tenant is entitled to avoid the ejectment by depositing rent, etc. on the first date of hearing. However, if the suit is filed on other grounds mentioned under Section 20 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 along with or without ground of default, then tenant cannot avoid eviction by depositing rent, etc. on the first date of hearing. 7. By way of further clarification, another illustration may be taken into consideration. Suppose a tenant of a building covered by U. P. Rent Control Act, (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) has damaged the building and is also in arrears of rent for two months when notice of termination of tenancy and demanding the rent is served upon him, thereafter, suit for ejectment is filed on the ground of damage to the building under Section 20 (2) (c) of the Act including therein prayer for recovery of two months rent also. In such situation, the ground of eviction will be of damage to the building and not default in payment of rent, as under Section 20 (2) (a) default can be a ground for eviction only if it is for more than three months. In such a situation, Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be applicable and tenant by depositing the entire rent cannot avoid his ejectment, if ground under Section 20 (2) (c), i.e., damage to the building is made out. The position will remain the same even if default was for more than four months and was also taken as a ground for ejectment in addition to the ground of damage to the building. In the following authorities, it has been held that if Rent Control Act does not apply, then Section 114 of T. P. Act does not become applicable automatically unless lease is determined for non-payment of rent. In the following authorities, it has been held that if Rent Control Act does not apply, then Section 114 of T. P. Act does not become applicable automatically unless lease is determined for non-payment of rent. (1) 2000 (2) ARC 32 (para 12) ; (2) 1999 (1) ARC 202 (in this authority the authority of Surjit Singh (supra) has been distinguished) ; (3) 2002 (2) ARC 195 ; (4) 1995 ALR 13 ; (5) 1996 (1) ARC 153 ; (6) AIR 1984 Bom 400 ; (7) 1981 ARC 474 ; (8) 1998 (2) ARC 362 . 8. No other point has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. 10. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the premises in dispute, provided that within one month from today, he pays to the landlord or deposits before J.S.C.C., for payment to landlord, entire rent due till 31.1.2004, and files an undertaking within the same period of one month, to the effect that after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six month he would willingly hand over vacant possession of the property in dispute to the landlord.