JUDGMENT S.U. KHAN, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition was dismissed in default several times and then restored. 3. This is tenant's writ petition. Mrs. P.E. Boyce original landlady (since deceased and survived by respondent Nos. 3 to 8) filed Suit No. 264 of 1972 against tenant petitioner for his eviction. Property in dispute is constructed portion in the form of motor garage used by the tenant for repairing the motor cars etc. Rate of rent is Rs. 30/- per month. -. 4. Landlady gave notice on 29.12.1971 of termination of tenancy and demand of rent from 15.6.1971 to 14.12.1971. The notice was served on 30.12.1971. Admittedly, the tenant paid the arrears of rent demanded through the notice within one month. However, suit was filed on the ground that old Rent Control Act i.e., U.P. Act No.3 of 1947 was not applicable to the building in dispute. Suit was filed in April, 1972. The new Rent Control Act, i.e., U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was enforced w.e.f. 15.7.1972. Both the Courts below have found that building in dispute was constructed in the year, 1955 hence old Rent Control Act was not applicable. Written statement was filed on 19.7.1972 i.e., after four days of enforcement of the new Act. In para No. 14 of the written statement benefit of 1972 Act was claimed. In the suit initially defence was struck off but afterwards through order dated 12.5.1979 J.S.C.C. recalled the earlier order. Against order dated 12.5.1979 Civil Revision No. 1984 of 1979 was filed by landlady plaintiff which was dismissed by Nth A.D.J. Jhansi (Annexure-4 is the copy of the said judgment which does not bear the date). Ultimately J.S.C.C./Munsif Court No.3, Jhansi decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 13.11.1980. Against the said judgment and decree Civil Revision No. 275 of 1980 was filed. IInd A.D.J. Jhansi dismissed the revision through judgment and order dated 25.11.1981, hence this writ petition. Revisional Court did not stay any thing regarding the merit of the case or the controversy involved. It only said that findings of the Trial Court were findings of fact, hence Revisional Court could not interfere in the said findings. 5. IInd A.D.J. Jhansi dismissed the revision through judgment and order dated 25.11.1981, hence this writ petition. Revisional Court did not stay any thing regarding the merit of the case or the controversy involved. It only said that findings of the Trial Court were findings of fact, hence Revisional Court could not interfere in the said findings. 5. The Trial Court mainly decreed the suit on the ground that defence of the tenant should be struck off under Order XV, Rule 5, C.P.C. and he was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the new Act of 1972. I do not agree with the said finding for two reasons., Firstly the earlier order striking off the defence had been set aside afterwards by the Trial court itself and the said order had been affirmed by the Revisional Court. Secondly, even if defence has been struck off, the tenant is entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act, if the said sub-section is applicable and on the date of first hearing tenant has deposited the entire rent alongwith interest and landlord's cost of the suit. 6. However, the main point to be decided in this writ petition is as to' whether suit was maintainable in view of the fact that the entire demanded rent had been paid within a month of the receipt of notice. There can not be any doubt that in case suit had been filed after the enforcement of the new Act of 1972 then it would not have been maintainable. By virtue of section 20 (2) (a) of the new Act of 1972 eviction on the ground of default is permissible only if within a month from receipt of notice rent is not paid. In the instant case admittedly rent had been paid within a month of receipt of the notice. 7. By virtue of section 20 (2) (a) of the new Act of 1972 eviction on the ground of default is permissible only if within a month from receipt of notice rent is not paid. In the instant case admittedly rent had been paid within a month of receipt of the notice. 7. However as the suit was filed before enforcement of the new Act of 1972, hence position is squarely covered by section 39 of the new Act of 1972 which is quoted below :- "Pending suits for eviction relating to buildings brought under regulation for the first time.-In any suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act did not apply, pending on the date of commencement of this Act, where the tenant within one month from such date of commencement or from the date of his knowledge of the pendency of the suit, whichever be later, deposits in the Court before which the suit is pending, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's full cost of the suit, no decree for the eviction shall be passed except on any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) or in Clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of section 20, and the parties shall be entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where necessary: Provided that a tenant the rent payable by whom does not exceed twenty-five rupees per month need not deposit any interest as aforesaid." 8. In order to avail the benefit of the aforesaid section ,tenant was required to deposit the entire rent due from him either by 15.7.1972 or latest by 19.8.1972 as on 19.7.1972 written statement was filed and at least on the said date (if not before) tenant was aware of pendency of the suit. The tenant had paid the rent in pursuance of notice till 14.12.1971. He should have deposited the rent from 15.12.1971 to 14.8.1972 latest by 19.8.1972 In the judgment of the Trial Court it is mentioned that tenant deposited the rent from 15.12.1971 to 15.4.1975 on 10.4.1975 amounting to Rs. 1490/-. Thereafter on 24.10.1978 also Rs.1290/- were deposited by the tenant. The tenant had paid the rent in pursuance of notice till 14.12.1971. He should have deposited the rent from 15.12.1971 to 14.8.1972 latest by 19.8.1972 In the judgment of the Trial Court it is mentioned that tenant deposited the rent from 15.12.1971 to 15.4.1975 on 10.4.1975 amounting to Rs. 1490/-. Thereafter on 24.10.1978 also Rs.1290/- were deposited by the tenant. (At another place in the certified copy of the judgment of the Trial Court it is mentioned that ill 10.4.1974 no rent was deposited by the tenant. In any case even 10.4.1974 is much beyond 19.8.1972. 9. Accordingly, tenant was not entitled to the protection of the new Act of 1972. Result is that even if it is held that on the first date of hearing tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent alongwith interest and landlord's cost of the suit still he is not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the new Act of 1972. Accordingly, the suit was liable to be decreed on this ground. 10. An unnecessary controversy was raised by the tenant that adjoining land had also been let out to him and in respect of adjoining land similar suit being Suit No. 263 of 1972 was filed, hence it amounted to splitting up of the tenancy. The Trial Court found that the constructed accommodation in dispute in the instant writ petition and the adjoining open land had been let out separately. Both were let out through same rent deed. Rent deed was filed before the Trial Court in which it was mentioned that the room (constructed portion in dispute in the instant writ petition) was let out for three months @ Rs. 30/- per month and adjoining open lands was given on rent for 15 months rent of which for first twelve months was Rs. 60/- and thereafter Rs. 100/- per month. 11. The Trial Court rightly held that tenancies of both the portions were separate. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court affirmed by the Lower Revisional Court is approved even though on different grounds. 13. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that : 1. 100/- per month. 11. The Trial Court rightly held that tenancies of both the portions were separate. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court affirmed by the Lower Revisional Court is approved even though on different grounds. 13. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that : 1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlady-respondent. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 3,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. and shall immediately be paid to the landlady-respondent. 3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decretal amount due till date (after adjusting any amount already deposited) before the J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to landlady respondent. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 14. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decretal amount and Rs. 3,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlady-respondent to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application. Petition Dismissed.