JUDGMENT Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 12.10.2010 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra in S.C.C. Case no. 10 of 2008 as well as judgment and order dated 21.2.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, court no. 6, Agra in SCC revision no. 60 of 2010. 3. Backdrop of the case is that the after taking the shop in dispute on rent from the respondent landlady for a period of 11 months on 1.11.2002, the petitioner did not vacate it after expiry of the period aforesaid and continued to hold over. This compelled the plaintiff respondent to file suit no. 10 of 2008 against the petitioner for recovery of rent and his eviction from the shop in question, claiming she is the owner of the property no. 123/2 situated at Kamla Nagar, Agra, in which the defendant - petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month; that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner for a period of 11 months as per rent note executed between the parties on 1.11.2002; that since the petitioner neither vacated the shop after expiry of 11 months nor paid rent since January 2007 inspite of repeated demands, he became an unauthorised occupant and in these circumstances a notice dated 22.9.2007 was sent to the defendant petitioner for unpaid rent with effect from 1.11.2007 to 24.10.2007 amounting to Rs. 3900/-. According to the landlady, the construction was new, as such provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were not applicable. 4. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the plaint averments. It was also stated that suit was not maintainable and that due to threat of eviction by the plaintiff, he had instituted suit no. 34 of 2007 for injunction against the landlord which was dismissed by the trial court holding the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant. Aggrieved the petitioner filed civil appeal no. 34 of 2008 which was also dismissed. 5. Case of the petitioner before the court below was that when the plaintiff had refused to receive rent, he deposited the rent in Misc. case no. 67 of 2007 as U.P. Act no. Aggrieved the petitioner filed civil appeal no. 34 of 2008 which was also dismissed. 5. Case of the petitioner before the court below was that when the plaintiff had refused to receive rent, he deposited the rent in Misc. case no. 67 of 2007 as U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the property in question and that the petitioner tenant had rightly got electricity connection in his own name from the electricity department. 6. Documentary as well as oral evidence was also adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases before the court below. 7. After haring the parties, the Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra vide judgment and order dated 12.10.2010 decreed suit no. 10 of 2008 directing the petitioner tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 5150/- with 9 % interest to the plaintiff and to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner preferred SCC revision no. 60 of 2010 challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2010 which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 21.2.2011 upholding the decision rendered by the Judge, small causes court in the suit. 8. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid two judgments inter alia on the ground that both the courts below have wrongly held that Act no. 13 of 1972 will not apply to the accommodation in question particularly when the plaintiff failed to prove as to on which date the house in question was constructed. It is stated that the findings of the courts below are against facts and are based on surmises and conjectures, as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not a defaulter as he has paid rent regularly to the landlady and it is only when she refused to accept the rent that he started depositing rent under section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case no. 60 of 2007, hence the findings recorded by the courts below that petitioner is a defaulter and is not entitled to get benefits of section 20(4) of the Act, is erroneous. 9. It is lastly submitted that even after expiry of period of 11 months as per agreement entered between the parties, the petitioner continued to pay rent to the landlady which she accepted. 9. It is lastly submitted that even after expiry of period of 11 months as per agreement entered between the parties, the petitioner continued to pay rent to the landlady which she accepted. It was when the rent was refused to be accepted, that the cause arose for the rent to be deposited by him in the court in Misc. case no. 67 of 2007 and that the courts below have wrongly upheld the claim of the landlady holding the petitioner tenant as an unauthorised occupant in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued that since the landlady had herself stated in the plaint that petitioner tenant is an unauthorised occupant, the SCC suit filed by her for termination of tenancy and realisation of rent, is not maintainable and the only remedy available to the landlady was to file a regular suit for dispossession of the petitioner but both the courts below have ignored to consider this contention made in the plaint. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner entered into the accommodation in dispute as a legal tenant pursuant to rent agreement executed between the parties for a period of 11 months but thereafter he did not vacate it, hence he was a tenant at sufferance or holding over. In suit no. 34 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for injunction against the landlady, he has been declared an unauthorised occupant. Revision against that order has also been dismissed. Moreover, the petitioner has also been found to be unauthorised occupant and a defaulter in SCC case no. 10 of 2008 filed by the landlady as well as in SCC revision no. 60 of 2010 preferred against the judgment of JSCC in SCC suit no. 10 of 2008. 11. The courts below by a reasoned and cogent judgment have recorded concurrent findings of fact that petitioner tenant cannot be granted benefit of section 20(4) of the Act. The Judge, Small Causes Court has decreed the suit holding that there was a relationship of tenant and landlady between the parties and that provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the accommodation in dispute. It appears earlier only a room, a bathroom and toilet was built. The Judge, Small Causes Court has decreed the suit holding that there was a relationship of tenant and landlady between the parties and that provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the accommodation in dispute. It appears earlier only a room, a bathroom and toilet was built. Thereafter, shop has been built on the land appurtenant, as such in view of the Act, the courts concluded that first date of assessment of the shop was on the date when the petitioner came into its possession and it was new construction. The conclusions drawn by the courts below are in accordance with provisions of law which have been arrived at after discussing the evidence on record. 12. As regards the question of benefit of section 20(4) of the Act is concerned, the court while deciding issue no. 5 has come to the conclusion that the tenant petitioner had not deposited any amount towards arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, as such he is not entitled to benefit under section 20(4) of the Act. Even otherwise, the amount deposited by him under section 30(1) of the Act is not liable to be adjusted as he did not deposit the same in accordance with law. The findings recorded by the court below in respect of issue no. Even otherwise, the amount deposited by him under section 30(1) of the Act is not liable to be adjusted as he did not deposit the same in accordance with law. The findings recorded by the court below in respect of issue no. 5, is thus : fuLrkj.k okn&fcUnq la[;k&5%& "D;k izfroknh fdjk;k vf/kfu;e&13 lu~ 1972 dh /kkjk&20 ¼4½ dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS \" okn&fcUnq la[;k&2 ds fuLrkj.k ls ;g Li"V gks pqdk gS fd iz'uxr lEifRr ij fdjk;k vf/kfu;e la[;k&13 lu~ 1972 ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gSA vr% /kkjk&20 ¼4½ ij ppkZ fd;s tkus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA ;fn iz'uxr lEifRr ij vf/kfu;e ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs rks D;k fLFkfr gksrhA izLrqr okn okfnuh dh rjQ ls y?kqokn U;k;ky; esa fnukad 28-01-2008 dks nkf[ky fd;k x;k A fnukad 16-04-2008 dks okfnuh dk okn fujLr dj fn;k x;k] fnukad 19-09-2008 dks jsLVksj fd;k x;k] fnukad 12-02-2009 dks izfroknh mifLFkr vk;k rFkk 18x izkFkZuki= e; 19x odkyrukek nkf[ky fd;k x;kA izfroknh ds }kjk okn dh izFke frfFk ij /kkjk&20¼4½ dk ykHk izkIr djus ds fy;s dksbZ /kujkf'k tek ugha dhA Mh0MCyw0 &1 us viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd eSaus bl vnkyr esa fdjk;k tek ugha fd;k gSA ;gka ;g Li"V djuk vko';d gksxk fd ;fn fdjk;snkj fdjk;k vnk djus dk O;frdzeh ugha gksxk rks mls /kjk & 20¼4½ dk ykHk izkIr djus ds fy;s fdlh /kujkf'k dks tek djus dh vko';drk ugha gksxh O;frdzeh u gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkou dk okn iks"k.kh; ugha gksxkA ;fn fdjk;snkj O;frdzeh gS rks mls okn dh izFke frfFk ij leLr fdjk;k] vf/koDrk dh vk/kh Qhl] uksfVl dk [kpZ e; C;kt lfgr tek djuk gksxkA ;fn mlds }kjk dksbZ /kujkf'k /kkjk&30¼1½ ds rgr fof/kr% tek dh gS rks mls lek;ksftr fd;k tk;sxkA miyC/k lk{;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izfroknh }kjk dksbZ /kujkf'k okn dh izFke frfFk ij tek ugha dh gSA ;fn iz'uxr izdj.k esa fdjk;k vf/kfu;e&13 lu~ 1972 ds izkfo/kku ykxw gksrs rks fdjk;snkj /kkjk&20¼4½ dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha FkkA /kkjk &30¼1½ esa tek fof/kd tek ugha gSA rn~uqlkj ;g okn&fcUnq fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 13. It is not in dispute that the landlady had given a notice to the petitioner terminating his tenancy and for arrears of rent. It is not in dispute that the landlady had given a notice to the petitioner terminating his tenancy and for arrears of rent. The petitioner was only holding over the shop in question after expiry of 11 months i.e. the period of agreement / rent note dated 1.11.2002for which it was let out to him, therefore, he cannot be said to be a legal tenant after expiry of period of 11 months of tenancy. 14. For all the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed as no illegality or infirmity has been shown in the concurrent findings of facts in the orders impugned. The petitioner is granted two months' time to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord. No order as to costs.