RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner has prayed for writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 3-4-2006 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Agra in S. C. C. Suit No. 226 of 1993, Sri Mohan Lal v. Smt. Alina Paul, as well as for quashing of the judgment and order dated 28-4-2007 passed by Additional District Judge/special Judge, S. C. and S. T. Act, Agra in S. C. C. Revision No. 19 of 2006, Smt. Alina Paul v. Sri Mohan Lal. 3. A further prayer has been made in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to evict the petitioner from the premises in question till the pendency of the writ petition. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff/defendant Mohan Lal is the owner and landlord of House No. 59/103-C, Ajit Nagar, Gate Kheria Road, Agra. The plaintiff/respondent instituted Suit No. 226 of 1993 on 17-11-1993 for a decree of rent and eviction and in addition to a decree for pendente lite and future damages @ Rs. 330 per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual delivery of vacant possession of the property in suit. 5. Petitioner/defendant claimed that she was in occupation of a portion of the aforesaid house since 1- 7-1992 which consists of one room, kitchen, latrine and bathroom @ Rs. 330 per month apart from taxes. 6. It appears that it was claimed by the plaintiff that the petitioner was a defaulter hence a notice dated 28-9-1993 under Section 106 of T. P. Act was sent by the landlord calling upon the petitioner tenant to pay the entire arrears of rent and his tenancy was also terminated. 7. The landlord also called upon the petitioner/defendant tenant to deliver the vacant possession of the property in suit within one month of the receipt of the notice. 8. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying that provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable. The arrears of rent was also denied on the ground that there are no arrears of rent due on the defendant and plaintiff has not given any receipt of rent to the defendant. The trial Court framed the following issues : 9. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying that provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable. The arrears of rent was also denied on the ground that there are no arrears of rent due on the defendant and plaintiff has not given any receipt of rent to the defendant. The trial Court framed the following issues : 9. The trial Court decided Issue No. 1 holding that the defendant has admitted the extent of the accommodation and the plaintiff as her landlord, as such, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the landlord. 10. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the tenant holding that it is not proved that the defendant had defaulted in payment of rent to the landlord. 11. As regard Issue No. 3 is concerned, the trial Court held that as Issue No. 2 had been decided in favour of the tenant, as such, it cannot be said that the tenancy of the petitioner cannot be terminated by the aforesaid notice. 12. In so far as Issue No. 4 is concerned, the Trial Court after discussing the pleadings and evidence of parties on record, held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the accommodation under the tenancy of the defendant had been newly constructed and as such, new construction of the tenement is not proved hence provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable on the property in dispute. 13. The Revisional Court by its order dated 28-4-2007 in Revision No. 19 of 2006 held that rate of rent and accommodation in dispute is undisputed and the only small point in dispute is whether the rent of Rs. 330/- was inclusive of water tax or exclusive of it. After discussing of provision of Section 7 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Court held that as the rate of the tenanted accommodation was admittedly more than Rs. 25/- per month hence according to provision of Section 7 of the Act, the rent would include taxes unless it is established by the tenant that there was an agreement to the contrary. 14. The Revisional Court further held that more than 4 months rent was due when the tenancy was terminated by the landlord and that the revisionist petitioner had not deposited the rent due by the first date of hearing. 14. The Revisional Court further held that more than 4 months rent was due when the tenancy was terminated by the landlord and that the revisionist petitioner had not deposited the rent due by the first date of hearing. Hence, the petitioner has committed default, as such the decree issued by the Small Causes Court was confirmed. 15. Thus, it appears that the J. S. C. C. , Agra had decreed the suit directing the defendant to deposit the rent from 1-10-1992 to 30-11-1993 @ Rs. 330/- per month and pay regularly at the same rate till the possession of the premises in question is handed over to the landlord but it was not deposited as has been found in the S. C. C. Revision by the District Judge, Agra. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has admittedly not deposited 14 months rent as directed by the J. S. C. C. Court Agra i. e. from 1-10-1992 to 30-11-1993 @ Rs. 330/- per month with interest. 17. In this admitted position where the tenant has not deposited the rent for more than 14 months in spite of the order of the Court, and had not deposited the same on the first date of hearing. 18. No other point has been argued by the Counsel for the petitioner. 19. I have considered the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner and am of the opinion that the tenant cannot be granted any benefit under the Act. It has rightly been held by the Revisional Court that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent which is also admitted by the petitioners Counsel and appears to be correct position from the records before this Court. 20. No illegality or infirmity has been otherwise shown or argued by the Counsel for the petitioner. 21. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order. 22. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the premises in dispute. The petitioner shall pay the amount of rent due for 14 month w. e. f. 1- 10-1992 to 30-11-1993 with interest @ 9% within a period of one month to the landlord and further pay damages @ Rs. 22. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the premises in dispute. The petitioner shall pay the amount of rent due for 14 month w. e. f. 1- 10-1992 to 30-11-1993 with interest @ 9% within a period of one month to the landlord and further pay damages @ Rs. 400/- per month for use and occupation of the building before handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the petitioner. 23. In case of default of any of the conditions as provided herein, it would be open to the landlord to proceed in accordance with law for the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute and for recovery of the amount due to him. Petition dismissed. .