Prakash Krishna, J.;- The present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and decree dated 15th October, 2009 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 2006, Om Prakash Sharma V. Satish Chandra Sharma whereby the court below has dismissed the suit. The said suit was filed by Om Prakash Sharma, the applicant herein, on the pleas inter alia that he is the owner and landlord of House No. 8/83 (Old), 14/119 (New) situate at Mandir Wali Gali, Padaw Dube, Aligarh. Satish Chandra Sharma the defendant is the tenant of its ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs.2,200/-, besides the house tax and water tax. The tenancy has been determined by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the monthly rent is more than Rs.2000/- therefore the building is exempted building. 2. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that the defendant-tenant is not in defaulter in payment of rent and that monthly rent is Rs.2,200/- inclusive of house tax and water tax. In other words, the defendant is not liable to pay the house tax or water tax separately. 3. The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The suit has been dismissed by the court below on the finding that the defendant-tenant is not liable to pay the house tax and water tax and he is not a defaulter in payment of rent. Further finding under Issue No. 1 is that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The trial court has granted benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act by relieving the tenant from eviction decree as the requisite amount was deposited before the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits only one point in support of the present revision, since the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, the court below was not justified in extending the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. Submission is that the tenancy between the parties is monthly tenancy and there is no question of relieving against forfeiture. 5. Shri Sudhakar Yadav, holding brief of Shri A.P.S. Raghav, learned counsel for tenant-opposite party supports the impugned judgment. 6. Submission is that the tenancy between the parties is monthly tenancy and there is no question of relieving against forfeiture. 5. Shri Sudhakar Yadav, holding brief of Shri A.P.S. Raghav, learned counsel for tenant-opposite party supports the impugned judgment. 6. Considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A bare perusal of the judgment under revision would show that under Issue No. 6, the trial court has extended the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not disputed before me that the rate of rent is Rs.2,200/- per month. In this view of the matter, obviously the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be applicable. 8. There is nothing on record to show that there was any registered lease agreement between the parties, which may contain a forfeiture clause. The present suit is a simple suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground that the defendant-tenant was monthly tenant. I have considered the question of forfeiture for non-payment of rent in such fact situation. In the case of Phool Badan Verma v. Ram Badhaee & others, [2009 (3) ARC 567]. It has been held that in such circumstances, the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be extended. The matter has again considered in Sanjay Kumar Tomar v. Prahlad Kumar Gupta & another, [2010 (3) ARC 515], wherein it has been held as follows: "12. It is a simple suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant whose tenancy was month to month herein on the ground that the lease was granted for a period of 11 months and the said period has expired. It is acknowledged legal position that after the expiry of the lease period, a tenant becomes tenant month by month and tenancy of said tenant can be determined by giving him a notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act, if the tenancy is not governed by any State Rent Control Laws, as here the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and as such the tenant is liable for eviction. In such matters, Section 114 of the T.P. Act is not applicable." 9. In view of the above discussions, the finding of the court below under Issue No. 6 cannot be allowed to stand. In such matters, Section 114 of the T.P. Act is not applicable." 9. In view of the above discussions, the finding of the court below under Issue No. 6 cannot be allowed to stand. In other words, the trial court has committed illegality in not granting the decree for eviction in respect of defendant-tenant opposite party herein. 10. No argument was advanced with regard to the finding recorded by the trial court that the defendant-tenant is not liable to pay house tax and water tax separately. The said finding recorded by the trial court is, therefore, confirmed. 11. In view of the above, the revision succeeds and is allowed in part. 12. The judgment and decree of the trial court is, hereby, set aside. The suit for recovery of damages pendente lite and future at the rate of 2,200/- as well as for ejectment of defendant-opposite party stands decreed. The amount deposited by the defendant tenant before the trial court shall be given adjustment. No order as to costs.