JUDGMENT Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J. This is a defendant tenant's revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgement and decree dated 17-10-1979 passed in civil suit no. 29 of 1976 whereby the suit for ejectment of the defendant tenant (applicant) from the premises in suit, for recovery of Rs. 4,792/- as rent and damages upto 29-2-1976 and for pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 1,850/- per month w.e.f. 1-3-1976 to the date of delivery of possession of the premises in suit has been decreed. 2. The facts for the purposes of disposal of the present revision may be noticed in brief. The plaintiff, who is opposite party herein, instituted the aforestated suit on the pleas inter alia that the defendant tenant is in occupation of portion of house- new no. 51-A (old no. 47), Johnstonganj, Allahabad The said building was constructed and completed on 1-4-1968. The defendant tenant took possession of the said building thereafter. The defendant tenant is liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,850/- on the first day of every month of English calendar. The defendant tenant having failed to pay the rent as and when it fell due, the plaintiff opposite party had to file another civil suit no. 126 of 1975 in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 63,200/-. Certain payments, after institution of the said suit, were made and after giving the adjustment of those payments, a sum of Rs. 6,650/- remained due till the date of filing of the suit giving rise to the present revision. The tenancy has been terminated by means of notice of demand and ejectment dated 3-1-1976. The said notice was duly served on the defendant. It was further stated that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question as the building in question is a 'new construction' and it has not completed 10 years from the date of construction on or before filing of the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant applicant on number of pleas, but the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties was admitted. The defendant tenant came out with a case that initially it took possession of the property in question on monthly rent of Rs. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant applicant on number of pleas, but the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties was admitted. The defendant tenant came out with a case that initially it took possession of the property in question on monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- which was reduced to Rs. 2,000/- per month w.e.f. 10-8-1968 as it partly vacated the tenanted accommodation. Two rooms' accommodation was further vacated in December, 1971. These two rooms were let out to Post Office on monthly rent of Rs. 246/-. The rent should have been reduced to Rs. 1,554/- per month from December, 1971, but the plaintiff is illegally demanding the rent at the rate of Rs. 1,850/- instead. The validity of notice determining the tenancy was also challenged. It was further pleaded that the defendant tenant has invested a sum of Rs. 12,432/- in carrying out the repairs etc. and as such, the defendant is entitled to get adjustment of the said amount, besides the fact that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the building in question. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as nine, following issues were struck by the trial court:- 1.Whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applies to the disputed building, and if so, whether the defendant is liable to eviction on service simplicitor of a notice u/s 106 T.P. Act? 2.Whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the building in question and is so, whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent? 3.Whether the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation is Rs. 1850/- per month or Rs. 1554/- per month? 4.Whether the defendant has been served with a notice u/s 106 T.P. Act? If not, to what effect? 5.Whether the defendant has been served with a valid notice of demand? 6.Whether any amount of money by way of arrears of rent is due from the defendant? 7.Whether the defendant is entitled to claim the amount spent by him on carrying out repairs in the disputed building? 8.To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 9.Whether notice under Cooperative Societies Act has been given? If not, whether the present suit is not legally maintainable? 4. 7.Whether the defendant is entitled to claim the amount spent by him on carrying out repairs in the disputed building? 8.To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 9.Whether notice under Cooperative Societies Act has been given? If not, whether the present suit is not legally maintainable? 4. The trial court by the judgement and decree under revision has found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable; notice determining the tenancy is valid; rate of rent of disputed accommodation is Rs. 1,850/- per month; a sum of Rs. 4,792/- is due as rent and damages upto 29-2-1976; the defendant is not entitled to claim adjustment of any amount allegedly spent by it in carrying out the repairs in the disputed building and that no notice under Section 117 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act was necessary to be given by the plaintiff to the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies and the suit is legally maintainable. 5. Heard Sri R.N. Upadhya, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, Advocate for the opposite party. 6. At the very outset it may be stated that Sri R.N. Upadhya learned counsel for the applicant has not challenged the findings recorded by the trial court on most of the issues. He challenged the findings recorded on the issue nos. 1 and 2 with regard to the 'date of construction of the building in question' and on the question of 'default in payment of rent.' Elaborating the arguments, he submits that with regard to the rate of rent, the matter was pending in another suit no. 126 of 1975 and, therefore, the court was not justified in recording the finding on the question of rate of rent. 7. Having considered the said argument, it is difficult to agree with him. An issue regarding rate of rent of the disputed accommodation was struck as is evident from issue no. 2. The court was called upon to decide the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation. It was contended by the defendant tenant that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,554/- per month while the plaintiff applicant claimed rent at Rs. 1,850/- per month. 2. The court was called upon to decide the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation. It was contended by the defendant tenant that the rate of rent is Rs. 1,554/- per month while the plaintiff applicant claimed rent at Rs. 1,850/- per month. The court below on making an analysis of the evidence, oral and documentary, reached to the conclusion that the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation is Rs. 1,850/- per month. No illegality or perversity therein could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant. While recording the finding on the said issue, the court below has taken into consideration not only the oral evidences which were led by the parties, but it also took into consideration the compromise which took place between the parties in November, 1971. The judgement of the trial court would show that after vacation of two rooms (godown), the rent was reduced to Rs. 1,850/- per month as was mutually agreed upon. However, the defendant tenant became wiser later and started claiming that since two rooms vacated by it were subsequently let out at Rs. 246/- per month, the reduction in rent should be of Rs. 246/-, instead of Rs. 150/- per month. Once the defendant tenant agreed to the reduction of rent by Rs. 150/- per month on account of vacation of two rooms' accommodation by it, it is no longer open to it to contend that it should be reduced further as the said accommodation was let out at higher rent than Rs. 150/- per month. 8. In any view of the matter, the issue relating to rate of rent is essentially a question of fact which cannot be interfered in a revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in appreciation of evidence done by the trial court. The trial court believed the version of the plaintiff opposite party as more trustworthy and rejected the version of the defendant tenant. It is not open to this Court to take a different view of the matter, specially in a revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, otherwise it would amount entering into arena of appreciation of evidence which is not permissible in such revisions. 9. It is not open to this Court to take a different view of the matter, specially in a revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, otherwise it would amount entering into arena of appreciation of evidence which is not permissible in such revisions. 9. Then, it was urged that the benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 should have been extended by the court below instead of a decree for eviction. The court below has found as a fact that the building in question was constructed on 1-4-1968. The said finding was arrived at on the basis that the defendant tenant is the first occupant after completion of the building and this aspect of the case is not subject matter of challenge in the present revision before me. The suit giving rise to the present revision was filed on 4-3-1976. In other words, on the date of institution of the suit, the building had not completed a period of 10 years. Section 2(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to a building during the period of 10 years from the date of which its construction is completed. In this fact situation, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were obviously not applicable on the date of institution of the suit. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of completion of period of 10 years during the pendency of the suit, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will be applicable. The said argument has got no substance and has been repelled by the Apex Court on number of times more than one. Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Dig Vijendra Pal Gupta, AIR 1982 SC 1230 is a leading case wherein it has been held that the language of sub section (2) of Section 2 of the Act is explicit and unambiguous and does not warrant any such interpretation. In other words, the Act will not apply to such suits instituted before expiry of exemption period of 10 years from the date of construction. 10. At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 should have been given to the defendant tenant while dismissing the suit so far as eviction is concerned. 10. At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 should have been given to the defendant tenant while dismissing the suit so far as eviction is concerned. Elaborating the arguments, he submits that although it has been found that there is short fall of Rs. 13,828/- in making the required deposit under Section 39 of the Act, but such short fall is not of such magnitude which may dis-entitle the defendant tenant to be relieved from the decree of eviction. As already said above, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the suit was not pending on the date of commencement of the Act i.e. 15-7-1972. Secondly, looking to the monthly rent at Rs. 1,850/-, the argument that short fall of Rs. 13,828/- is not of big magnitude, is liable to be rejected at its very threshold. Before claiming benefit of Section 39 of the said Act, a tenant is required to make the necessary deposit within the stipulated period. Only trifling amount in a given case may be ignored. In this fact situation the benefit of Section 39 of the Act was rightly denied to the defendant tenant. 11. No other point was pressed. 12. The revision is concluded by findings of fact. The applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the order under revision. 13. The revision lacks merits and is, therefore, dismissed with costs throughout.