JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner is tenant of a shop in premises no. 46/1124, Hanuman Nagar, Jagdishpura, Agra at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month inclusive of taxes. Earlier, the father of the petitioner late Pati Ram was the tenant and after his death during the pendency of the proceedings the tenancy devolved upon the petitioner. 3. SCC Suit No. 155 of 1995 for ejectment was filed by Smt. Ram Devi the owner and landlady of the premises in dispute against the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent and denial of title, with the allegation that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1982 and thereafter let out to the tenant who has committed default and has not paid the rent since June,1988 and thereafter the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated vide notice dated 13.8.1991 which was served on 14.8.1991.After her death her legal heirs and representatives were substituted as respondent no. 1/1 Chandra Bhan and respondent no. 1/2 Smt. Chandrawati, son and daughter of Dauji Ram, husband of Ram Devi. 4. The defendant filed his written statement stating categorically that the shop in dispute was an old construction covered by the provisions of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972, on refusal to accept the rent by the landlord the same was deposited under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 213 of 1988, which was allowed finally on 16.4.1992. It was further stated that there was no denial of title, tenant has also deposited Rs.12000/- under Section 20(4) in the suit itself on the first date of hearing and notice of the plaintiff was invalid. 5. The Judge Small Causes Court, Agra vide his order dated 30.7.1997 decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the shop in question is a new construction and provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, hence no benefit of deposit made by the tenant can be given.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 190 of 1997 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision, an application supported with an affidavit along with the chart of deposit made by the tenant was filed. 7. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision, an application supported with an affidavit along with the chart of deposit made by the tenant was filed. 7. The Revisional Court has affirmed the findings of the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra vide its order dated 13.7.2001 by dismissing the revision. 8. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28321 of 2001 against the orders dated 30.7.1997 and 13.7.2001 before the High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 20.3.2007 on the ground that the tenant had acquired another shop. 9. The tenant preferred Special Leave to Appeal ( Civil) No. 10622 of 2007 against the order dated 20.3.2007 of the High Court before the Apex Court which was allowed on 26.11.2007 remanding the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The order of the Apex Court dated 26.11.2007 is as under:- ""Leave granted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned judgment is unsustainable. In the present case the short question involved before the High Court in the Writ Petition was whether the U.P. Rent Act was applicable or not applicable? The landlord had instituted the suit under the Rent Act on the ground of default. The Writ Petition of the tenant has been dismissed on the ground that the tenant has acquired a shop next to the suit premises which was not disclosed in the petition. We are of the view that the learned Judge, instead of dismissing the writ petition, should have decided the question of law, namely, whether the Act was or was not applicable. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition as early as possible, preferably within six months from today. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." 10. After remand the High Court in its order and judgment dated 19.2.2008 considered the provisions of law cited before it as well as the provisions contained in Explanation 1(a) of Section 2(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.2.2008, the writ petition was allowed remanding the matter back to the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. By the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.2.2008, the writ petition was allowed remanding the matter back to the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. The reasoning of the High Court is thus:- "The categorical case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the ground floor which alone was held to be let out by the plaintiff, was constructed in January, 1975. The question is if no actual date of completion has been reported to the local authority but if the date of actual completion is known to and stated by the plaintiff, then whether the Court will decide the date of completion taking into account the actual date, as averred by the plaintiff or by fiction, as created by clause (a) of Explanation I to sub-section (2) of Section 2. The argument by Sri Singh as that when actual date of completion is stated by the plaintiff then the Court will not give any consideration to the fiction and that the fiction will not override the reality. The real fact as was stated by the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the ground floor which is in dispute, was constructed in January 1975 and in face of this explicit case, Sri Singh argued that the date of assessment which was made in the year 1975, cannot be held to be the date of completion. I find substance in the submission of Sri Singh. The question is what is to be reported to by the owner of a building to the local authority? The answer is simple that a citizen who has constructed a building is supposed to report actual date of completion. The actual date of completion which is known to and is averred by the plaintiff will not cease to be the date of completion simply because it was not reported to the local authority. The dominant purpose of the Act, 1972 is to protect the interest of the tenants and the whole Act is to be interpreted bearing this purpose in mind. When the Legislature intended to protect tenants, then it will be preposterous to think that the Legislature would give an overriding effect to the fiction to the detriment of the tenants. The dominant purpose of the Act, 1972 is to protect the interest of the tenants and the whole Act is to be interpreted bearing this purpose in mind. When the Legislature intended to protect tenants, then it will be preposterous to think that the Legislature would give an overriding effect to the fiction to the detriment of the tenants. In the situation of a kind that has arisen in this case, if the fiction is given an overriding effect over the actual date of completion as averred by the plaintiff, then the tenants will be deprived of the protection, which the Legislature sought to give to them. In my view, the words "is reported to" occurring in clause (1) of Explanation I to sub-section (2) of Section 2 deserves a liberal construction which is consistent to the object of the Act. If the words "is reported to" are construed liberally, then in my view these words may be read meaning as "is reported to or averred by the owner of a building": The literal interpretation which is canvassed by Sri Rajeshwari Prasad of the words "is reported to", therefore, cannot be accepted, because that is contrary to the object of the Act, 1972. So the date of assessment cannot be taken to be the date of completion if the date of completion is reported to or averred by the owner of a building precedes the date of assessment. When the plaintiff himself averred that the portion under tenancy was constructed on an earlier date than the date of assessment, then there would be no justification to hold that the building was completed on a later date, i.e. the date of assessment and thereby denying the protection to the tenant, which is given by the Act, 1972. There is no conflict in the date reported to or averred by the owner of a building, because if at all the owner had reported the date he would have reported the date which he averred to be the date of completion." (emphasis supplied). 11. It may be noted that the case of the tenant petitioner before the court below that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute since 1975 and that some portion of the building was completed. 11. It may be noted that the case of the tenant petitioner before the court below that he was a tenant of the shop in dispute since 1975 and that some portion of the building was completed. Thereafter, hence, in view of the admission of the tenant petitioner that he was the tenant in the shop in dispute since 1975, he can not be permitted to resile from this statement, therefore, the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Courts below have committed an illegality in holding that the Act would not apply since the suit was filed within a period of ten years from 1.4.1987. While remanding the matter to the Judge Small Causes Court for determination of other issues that arise for consideration, the High Court partly allowed Writ Petition no.28321 of 2001, Pati Ram ( since deceased) versus Additional District Judge, Room No.5, Agra and others with the following directions. "The Courts below, therefore, committed an illegality in holding that the Act would not apply since the suit was filed within a period of ten years from 1.4.1987. The matter is, therefore, required to be remitted to the learned Judge, Small Cause Courts to determine the other issues that arise for consideration since finding on various issues have been recorded holding that the Act was not to apply whereas in fact building is not exempted from the operation of the Act. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed /to the extent indicated above. The judgments and orders dated 30.7.1997 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Courts and 13.7.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Agra are set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Judge, Small Cause Courts to decide the suit in the light of the observations made above." 12. After remand the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra vide its order and judgment dated 22.12.2008 decreed the suit with costs. Issue no.1 was decided holding that the notice dated 13.8.1991 in respect of recovery of arrears of rent and eviction is valid. In so far as issue no.2 regarding committing default in payment of rent by the petitioner is concerned, the court below held that the petitioner tenant committed default in payment of rent. Issue no.1 was decided holding that the notice dated 13.8.1991 in respect of recovery of arrears of rent and eviction is valid. In so far as issue no.2 regarding committing default in payment of rent by the petitioner is concerned, the court below held that the petitioner tenant committed default in payment of rent. Issue no.3 was decided against the tenant petitioner holding that the tenant had to pay the water and sewerage charges apart from rent of Rs.150/- per month. Issue no.4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff decreeing the suit and directing the defendant tenant to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the property in dispute within a period of one month to the landlord. 13. The aforesaid order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra was challenged by the petitioner in SCC Revision No. 5 of 2009 before the Revisional Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 affirming the judgment and order of the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra. 14. It appears from record that after the subsequent developments of the petitioner having acquired a shop next to the suit premises was not taken into consideration by the court below which is the reason that the Apex Court was of the view that the High Court has committed an error in not taking this subsequent development into consideration while remanding the matter back. The Apex Court held that the short question involved before the High Court in the writ petition was whether the U.P. Rent Act was applicable or not ? 15. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenant has acquired a vacant shop would not have any effect as this issue was not raised before the court below.He submits that explanation (i) of second proviso to Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 only applies to residential building, therefore, where the tenant has acquired a vacant shop or a commercial establishment or a number of shops would not have any effect upon his tenancy as the provision is in respect of residential building only . For ready reference Explanation (i) of second proviso to Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is quoted below. " Explanation- In the case of a residential building. For ready reference Explanation (i) of second proviso to Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is quoted below. " Explanation- In the case of a residential building. (i) where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with him or is wholly dependent on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained." 16. It is stated that the object of the Act is to provide, in the interest of the general public, for the regulation of letting, rent and the eviction of tenants from certain classes of buildings situated in urban areas, and for matters connected therewith. If the words " certain classes of buildings" given in the Act can apply only in respect of residential building then it would not be harmony with the provisions of Section 2 of the Act which provides exemptions from operation of Act, which is as under:- "2. If the words " certain classes of buildings" given in the Act can apply only in respect of residential building then it would not be harmony with the provisions of Section 2 of the Act which provides exemptions from operation of Act, which is as under:- "2. Exemptions from Operation of Act.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to [the following namely,] (a) any building of which the Government of local authority or a public sector corporation [or a Cantonment Board] is the landlord; or]- (b) any building belonging to or vested in a recognised educational institution,[* * *]; or [(bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable a or public religious institutions; (bbb) any building belonging to or vested in a Wakf including a Wakf-alal-aulad;] (c) any building used or intended to be used as a factory withing the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIII of 1948) [where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building is leased out along with the building]; or (d) any building used or intended to be used for any other industrial purpose (that is to say, for the purpose of manufacture, preservation or processing of any goods) or as a cinema or theatre, where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building is leased out along with the building: Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in relation to any shop or other building, situated within the precincts o the cinema or theatre, the tenancy in respect of which has been created separately from the tenancy in respect of the cinema or theatre; or (e) any building used or intended to be used as a place of public entertainment or amusement (including any sports stadium, but not including a cinema or theatre), or any building appurtenant thereto; or (f) any building built and held[* * *] by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. LXII of 1860), or by a co-operative society company or firm, and intended solely for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servants, whether or rent or free of rent, or as guest house, by whatever name called, for the occupation of persons having dealing with it in the ordinary course of business. [(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees; (h) any building of which a Mission of a foreign country or any international agency is the tenant;] [(2) Except as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 12, sub0section (1-A) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or sub-section (3) of Section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed]: [Provided that where any building is constructed substantially out of funds obtained by way of loan or advance from the State Government or the Life Insurance Corporation of India or a bank or a co-operative society or the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas parishad, and the period of repayment of such loan or advance exceeds the aforesaid period of ten years then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to the period of fifteen years or the period ending with the date of actual repayment of such loan or advance (including interest), whichever is shorter]: [Provided further that where construction of a building is completed on or after April 26, 1985 then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to a period of [forty years] from the date on which its construction is completed]. Explanation [I] [For the purposes of this section,- (a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time: Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately by the landlord and one or more tenants or by different tenants; (b) "Construction" includes any new construction in place of an existing building which has been wholly or substantially demolished; (c) where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be construed on the date of completion of the said addition. [Explanation II-- The expression 'bank' means- (i) a banking company, as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1919; (ii) the State Bank of India constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955; (iii) a subsidiary Bank, as defined in the State Bank of India (subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; (iv) a corresponding new bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; (V) a financing Bank of Central bank ( as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965), not being a Land Development Bank; and (VI) any other financial institution notified by the State Government in the Gazette as a bank for the purpose of this Act. Explanation III.-A building shall be deemed to be constructed substantially out of funds obtained from sources mentioned in the proviso, if the funds obtained from one or more of such sources account for more than on-half of the cost of construction.] 17. Therefore, the Courts have to take recourse to a view which advances the object of the Act. Explanation III.-A building shall be deemed to be constructed substantially out of funds obtained from sources mentioned in the proviso, if the funds obtained from one or more of such sources account for more than on-half of the cost of construction.] 17. Therefore, the Courts have to take recourse to a view which advances the object of the Act. If in Section 20 or Section 21of the Act it is not mentioned about the commercial shops, then an analogy has to be drawn on the basis of it. 18. However, as that issue was not before the court below, this Court refrains itself from expressing any view in this regard. 19. In so far as the judgments of the courts below are concerned, both the courts below have given concurrent findings of facts supported by cogent reasons that the petitioner cannot get benefit of Section 30(1) of the Act. 20. The Judge Small Causes Court, Agra has decided issue no.3 in this regard by holding that the suit was filed in his Court on 6.10.1995. The bone contention of counsel for the tenant before him was that water and sewerage charges were included in the rent which he has deposited in Misc. Case No. 13 of 1988 in the Court of Munsif, Agra. The Court below after perusal of paper no. 48-Ga filed in Misc. Case No. 13 of 1988 came to conclusion that tenant had deposited the rent for a period of four months i.e. from June, 1988 to September, 1988 and moved an application for permitting him to deposit the rent in future also which establishes that he was in arrears of rent for more than four months. The application was allowed vide order dated 16.4.1992 directing the petitioner tenant to deposit the rent of the disputed shop month to month. The application was allowed vide order dated 16.4.1992 directing the petitioner tenant to deposit the rent of the disputed shop month to month. However, prior to the order dated 16.4.92 the tenancy of the petitioner had been terminated by notice dated 13.8.91.The landlord had also demanded arrears of rent by the aforesaid notice and this also establishes that if the order permitting the tenant to deposit the rent has been passed on 16.4.92, the tenant was in default in payment of rent for more than 4 months, hence the order dated 16.4.92 permitting the petitioner tenant to deposit the rent does not come in his way and the tenant was obliged to have paid the rent as per demand notice aforesaid. The relevant findings of the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra with regard to payment of arrears of rent as to whether the petitioner tenant was liable to pay water and sewerage charges etc. apart from monthly rent of Rs.150/- or not are as under. The relevant findings of the Judge Small Causes Court, Agra with regard to payment of arrears of rent as to whether the petitioner tenant was liable to pay water and sewerage charges etc. apart from monthly rent of Rs.150/- or not are as under. **okfnuh }kjk ekg twu] 1988 ls mijksDr uksfVl &7x ds }kjk fdjk;s dh ekax dh x;h gS vkSj okn fn0 16-10-1995 dks ;ksftr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa izfroknh us viuh mifLFkfr fnukad 08-02-96 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj nh gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ekg twu] 1988 ls tuojh 1996 rd eq0 150@&:i;s izfrekg dh nj ls fdjk;k eq0 13800@& :0 izfroknh dh vksj curk gS ftl ij tydj 14 izfr0 ns; gS vkSj bl izdkj eq0 2030@&:i;s vkrk gSA bl izdkj dqy fdjk;k vkSj tydj ekg twu 1988 ls ekg tuojh 1996 rd eq0 15830 :i;s izfroknh ij cdk;k gksrs gSaA ;fn izfroknh /kkjk&20¼4½ dk ykHk ikuk pkgrk gS rks mldks dkLV vkWQ n lwV] e; C;kt 9 izfr'kr dh nj ls vnk djuk gksxkA bl izdkj mijksDr cdk;k fdjk;s ij 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls 1200@& :i;s curs gSa bl izdkj C;kt 1200@& uksfVl dk [kpkZ]150@&:i;s] dkSafly Qhl 250@&] vU; izdh.kZ [kpZ 100@& o dksVZQhl1071@& bl izdkj eq0 18601@&:i;s izfroknh ds Åij dkLV vkWQ n lwV ds rgr ekg tuojh] 1996 esa cdk;k Fkk tks izfroknh dks vnk djuk FkkA izfroknh }kjk QSgfjLr dkxt la[;k&18x ls nks VsaMj dkxt la[;k&19x o 20 x izLrqr fd, gSA VsaMj19x eq0 12000@&:i;s dk gS ftldk VsaMj fnukad 7-2-1996 dks U;k;ky; }kjk ikl fd;k x;k gSA nwljk VsaMj 1000@&:i;s dk gS tks fnukad 30-5-96 dks U;k;ky; }kjk ikl fd;k x;k gS ftlesa cSad esa tek dj fnukad 8-8-1996 dks U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gS ftldks U;k;ky; us Lohd`r fd;k gSA bl izdkj izfroknh }kjk ekg tuojh esa dsoy 12000@&:i;s tek fd;kA izfroknh }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd mlus izdh.kZ okn la[;k&213@1988 esa :i;s 4800@&:i;s VsaMj la[;k&41lh@1 }kjk izLrqr fd;k gSA mijksDr VsaMj dks ns[kus ls irk yxrk gS fd izfroknh }kjk 41lh@1 VsaMj dk bUnzkt gks ckj fn[kk fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj mlds }kjk eq0 4500@& :i;s tek fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izfroknh }kjk eq0 16500@&:i;s tek fd;k x;k crk;k x;k gS vkSj oknh }kjk ekg tuojh esa izfroknh ds Åij eq0 18601@& :i;s cdk;k crk, x, gSaA izfroknh us ;g ugha crk;k gS fd 2000@& :i;s fdl en esa tek fd, gSa ftlesa cdk;k /kujkf'k fdruh vkSj tydj dh /kujkf'k fdruh gS vkSj okn dk [kpkZ fdruk gSA okfnuh }kjk ;g dgk x;k gS fd izfroknh }kjk izdh.kZ okn la[;k&213@88 esa tks izkFkZuk i= fn;k Fkk og oknh }kjk fn, x, uksfVl&7x ds le; Lohdkj ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj mlds mijkUr fnukad 16-4-1992 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] vr% mlesa tek fd;k x;k :i;k dk ykHk izfroknh ugha izkIr dj ldrk gS D;ksafd izfroknh dks mijksDr izdh.kZ okn izLrqr djrs le; :i;s tek djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr ugha FkkA izfroknh dks fdjk;k tek djus dk vf/kdkj fnukad 16-4-1992 ls iwoZ gh fdjk;s dh ekWax uksfVl&7x }kjk nh x;h gS] vr% izfroknh dk nkf;Ro curk Fkk fd og lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k tks dkxt la[;k&7x uksfVl }kjk ekaxh x;h] oknh dks vnk djrk u fd izdh.kZ okn la[;k&213@1988 esa tek djrk D;ksafd uksfVl 7x }kjk ekax fd, tkus ds mijkUr izdh.kZ okn la[;k&213@1988 fu.khZr gqvk vkSj mlds }kjk izfroknh dks cdk;k fdjk;k tek djus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA vr% ml izdh.kZ okn esa tek dh x;h /kujkf'k 'kwU; gS vkSj mldk izfroknh dksbZ Hkh ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izdh.kZ okn fnukad 16-4-1992 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS ijUrq ;g okn Lohdkj fd, tkus dk egRo ugha jgrk D;ksafd oknh }kjk uksfVl dkxt la[;k&7x ls izfroknh ls fdjk;s dh ekWax dh tk pqdh gSA uksfVl izkIr djrs le; izfroknh ij pkj ekg dk fdjk;k cdk;k FkkA /kkjk&20 ¼4½ ;w0ih0 ,DV la[;k&13 lu~ 1972 ds uksfVl izkIr djus ds ,d ekg ds vanj izfroknh dk cdk;k fdjk;k oknh ds i{k esa vnk djuk pkfg, Fkk tks fd uksfVl izkIr djus ds 30 fnu ds vanj tek djus dk vf/kdkj bLrseky ugha fd;k cfYd og izdh.kZ okn la[;k&213@1988 esa tek dj fn;k Fkk tcfd og izdh.kZ okn la[;k&213@1988 fu"izHkkoh gks pqdk FkkA bl izdkj uksfVl &7x ds le; izfroknh ij pkj ekg dk fdjk;k cdk;k FkkA ;w0ih0 ,DV la[;k&13 lu~ 1972 ds vUrxZr /kkjk&20¼4½ dk ykHk izfroknh rHkh ikus vf/kdkjh gks ldrk gS fd ;fn og okn dh izFke frfFk ij lEiw.kZ fdjk;k e; dkWLV vkWQ nh lwV oknh dks fcuk fdlh 'krZ ds vnk dj nsrk gS rks okfn;k dk okn Lor% gh lekIr gks tkrk gSA ijUrq izfroknh us ,slk ugha fd;kA mlds }kjk dsoy 12000@& :i;s VsaMj dkxt la[;k&19x }kjk U;k;ky; esa tek fd;k tcfd mldks iw.kZ :i;k tks oknh }kjk eq0 18601@& :i;s crk;k gS] og tek djuk pkfg, FkkA ijUrq izfroknh dk ;g dguk fd izdh.kZ okn la[;k&213@88 esa :i;k tek fd;k gS] mldk lek;kstu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ijUrq mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mijksDr :i;ksa ds lek;kstu fd, tkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS D;ksafd okfn;k }kjk uksfVl &7x ls izfroknh ls fdjk;s dh ekWax dh x;h Fkh vkSj oknh dk ;g drZO; Fkk fd og oknh dks fdjk;k vnk djrkA^^ 21. Furthermore, relying upon the decisions rendered in Pyare Lal versus Ist Additional District Judge, Kanpur, Smt. Savitiri Vs. District Judge, Faizabad, Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. Smt. Bhagwati Devi, JS Thind Vs. Special Judge (Economic Offences), Allahabad and another and Madhu Sudan Vs. Anand Swaroop, the Court held that if the arrears of rent for period of four months or more due, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the accommodation in dispute, hence in the facts and circumstances, the tenant was liable to pay water and sewerage charges etc. along with rent which have not been paid then in that eventuality, the landlord is not only entitled to recover the same from the tenant but also for decree of eviction. Considering that the petitioner-tenant has been as a matter of fact found to be in default in payment of arrears of rent by the court below in issue no. 2. The relevant extract of findings in aforesaid issue are thus:- ** ----------------- mlds vuqlkj okfn;k us fnukad 13-8-1991 dks uksfVl 7x izfroknh dks Hkstk vkSj mlesa Li"V :i ls dgk x;k fd izfroknh dks fdjk;k /kkjk&30] ;w0 ih0 ,DV la[;k 13 lu~ 1972 esa tek djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA fnukad 13-8-1991 dks izfroknh }kjk ;ksftr izdh.kZ okn la[;k 213@1988 fu.khZr ugha gqvk Fkk vkSj mijksDr okn fnukad 16-4-1992 dks fu.khZr gqvk FkkA vr% mijksDr okn fnukad 13-8-1991 izkIr djus ds mijkar izfroknh dks vf/kdkj izkIr ugha Fkk fd og fdjk;k tek djrk vkSj mldk iw.kZ nkf;Ro Fkk fd ml okn esa tek fd;k x;k fdjk;k okfil ysdj okfn;k dks nsrk ijarq izfroknh us ,slk ugha fd;kA uksfVl fnukad 13-8-1991 dks i=koyh ij 7x ds :i esa miyC/k gS] mldh rkehyk izfroknh ij gqbZ ftldh izkfIr dh jlhn 9x i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA mijksDr uksfVl izfroknh dks izLrqr djrs le; izfroknh ij pkj ekg vf/kd ls dk fdjk;k cdk;k FkkA mijksDr uksfVl dh rkehyk izfroknh }kjk Lohdkj dh x;h gS] vkSj okfn;k dk 4 ekg ls vf/kd dk fdjk;k crk;k x;k gSA vr% izfroknh /kkjk 20¼4½ dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA** 22. Considering the case law cited before it the court below has also rightly found the landlord to be entitled to the decree of arrears of rent and eviction. 23. The Judge Small Causes Court while deciding issue no. Considering the case law cited before it the court below has also rightly found the landlord to be entitled to the decree of arrears of rent and eviction. 23. The Judge Small Causes Court while deciding issue no. 3 has also held that the petitioner was liable to pay water and sewerage charges apart from monthly rent of Rs.150/-. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in default in payment of arrears of rent of more than four months. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner was liable to pay water & sewerage charges apart from monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The petitioner-tenant is not entitled to any benefit of Section 30(1) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below have committed error in not giving benefit of section 30(1) on the ground that the notice regarding termination of tenancy of the petitioner had been served upon him prior to his depositing of the rent in Court below under section 30(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and orders impugned. 24. For the reasons stated above the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. 25. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the disputed shop to the landlord.