JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3 Shyam Sunder Agarwal filed S.C.C. Suit No. 29 of 1988 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent @ Rs. 250 per month. Property in dispute is a shop. Suit was dismissed by J.S.C.C./III A.C.J., Mathura, through judgment and decree dated 28.3.1995. Against the said judgment and decree, Civil Revision No. 52 of 1995 was filed. IIIrd A.D.J., Mathura, through judgment and order dated 8.10.1996, allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff with cost, hence this writ petition filed by the tenant. 3. Tenancy was created through registered rent deed dated 16.7.1984. Plaintiff pleaded that shop was new construction, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable thereupon. However, tenant pleaded that shop was more than ten years old when suit was filed, hence Act was applicable. 4. Copy of the rent deed is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the said deed, it is mentioned that shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1983 and the Act was not applicable thereupon. Condition No. 2 of the agreement is that tenancy has started w.e.f. 1.7.1984 and in case three months’ rent is not paid, tenancy would come to an end automatically. Initially, rent was not paid for June, July & August, 1987, however the same was sent through money-order afterwards which was accepted by the landlord. Thereafter, rent was not paid since February, 1988. Registered notice terminating tenancy was also sent on 4.4.1988. Trial Court held that even though by virtue of non-payment of rent for February, March and April of 1988, tenancy would have terminated but landlord sent notice of termination of tenancy dated 4.4.1988, hence tenancy was not validly terminated. 5. In Para-11 of the rent deed, it was mentioned that the tenancy was only for four years, however in case tenant so desired then after four years tenancy would be continued after enhancement of 20% in the rent. In Para-2 of rent deed, it was stated that tenancy would start on the first day of every English month and would come to an end on the last day of the month. 6. In Para-2 of rent deed, it was stated that tenancy would start on the first day of every English month and would come to an end on the last day of the month. 6. Trial Court further held that on the first date of hearing, tenant had deposited the entire rent etc., hence he was also entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 7. Even though tenant had pleaded that the Act was applicable but no evidence was led by the tenant in that regard and it appears that the said plea was not seriously pressed, hence trial Court assumed that Rent Control Act was not applicable. 8. In view of recital in the registered rent deed that shop was newly constructed, Act was not applicable. 9. The notice sent by the plaintiff required the defendant to deliver possession on the expiry of 30 days. It was a notice under Section 106, T.P. Act. 10. Revisional Court held that acceptance of rent did not waive the notice, that the suit was filed on the basis of termination of lease by notice, hence Section 114 of the T.P. Act was not applicable. Accordingly, revision was allowed. 11. In my opinion, the view taken by lower revisional Court is not correct. 12. Section 114 of the T.P. Act is quoted below : “114. Relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent.—Where a lease of immoveable property has been determined by forfeiture for non- payment of rent, and the lessor sues to eject the lessee, if, at the hearing of the suit, the lessee pays or tenders to the lessor the rent in arrear, together with interest thereon and his full costs of the suit, or gives such security as the Court thinks sufficient for making such payment within fifteen days, the Court may, in lieu of making a decree for ejectment, pass an order relieving the lessee against the forfeiture; and thereupon the lessee shall hold the property leased as if the forfeiture had not occurred.” 13. By virtue of condition No. 2 of the registered rent agreement, tenancy within four years could stand terminated only on the basis of non-payment of rent of three months. Accordingly, provisions of Section 114 were squarely applicable. Mere fact that notice under Section 106 had been given could not vary the said provision. By virtue of condition No. 2 of the registered rent agreement, tenancy within four years could stand terminated only on the basis of non-payment of rent of three months. Accordingly, provisions of Section 114 were squarely applicable. Mere fact that notice under Section 106 had been given could not vary the said provision. In any case under the registered rent agreement, there was no condition that tenancy could be terminated through notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act and initially the agreement was for four years, hence tenancy could not be terminated within four years. The only condition was that in case three months’ rent was not paid, tenancy would stand terminated. Accordingly, provisions of Section 114 of the T.P. Act were squarely applicable. 14. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the lower revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and order passed by the trial Court is restored. 15. Whatever amount has been paid by the tenant to the landlord under interim order dated 27.7.2007 shall not be refundable and shall not be adjustable in future rent. Through the said order, rent was fixed at Rs. 5500/- per month. 16. The authorities of V.K. Rastogi v. VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2003 (2) ARC 377 and Kumaun Plaza Pvt. and another v. Dr. Arvind Sharma and another cited by learned counsel for the landlord are not applicable as in the said cases there was no agreement like the agreement in the present case. ———