JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on the review petition. 2. This writ petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by me through judgment and order dated 8.9.2005. This review petition has been filed by the tenant petitioner seeking review of the said judgment. The suit for eviction was filed by landlords respondent Nos. 3 to 8. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of my judgment dated 8.9.2005 are quoted below: “Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 75/- per month. Courts below have also found in favour of the tenant that under written agreement tenant was liable to pay only half of the water tax and he was entitled to adjustment in rent the excess water tax paid by him. Tenant through receipt exhibit A-13 deposited Rs. 146.64 as tax to the Municipal Board. Courts below held that tenant’s liability was only to the extent of half of the taxes i.e. Rs. 73.32 hence he was entitled to adjustment in rent of the tax paid by him on behalf of the landlord i.e. Rs. 73.32. Tenant had deposited the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Courts below have found that the deposit of rent by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act till 6.10.1984 was valid and amounted to payment to the landlord hence he was not defaulter till that period. Thereafter landlords served a notice upon the tenant on 20.9.1984 demanding direct payment of tax. Inspite of service of the said notice tenant deposited five months rent (i.e. from 7.10.1984 to 6.3.1985) in the case under Section 30 of the Act on 5.1.1985. This deposit has been held by both the Courts below to be invalid. In my opinion the view taken by both the Courts below is quite correct in law. Tenant is not entitled to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act after receiving the notice from the landlord intimating the intention of the landlord to accept the rent directly. Thereafter landlords sent another notice on 13.5.1985 demanding rent and terminating the tenancy. In response to the said notice tenant remitted the rent from 7.3.1985 till 6.7.1985. The said rent was refused by the landlord as it was in complete. In the aforesaid notice rent from 7.3.1982 had been demanded. Thereafter landlords sent another notice on 13.5.1985 demanding rent and terminating the tenancy. In response to the said notice tenant remitted the rent from 7.3.1985 till 6.7.1985. The said rent was refused by the landlord as it was in complete. In the aforesaid notice rent from 7.3.1982 had been demanded. The argument of the tenant that notice was invalid as rent which was not even due had been demanded has rightly been repelled by both the Court below. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gokaran Singh v. Ist A.D.J., Hardoi and others, 2000 (1) ARC 653 (FB), such a notice is not invalid. Both the Courts below held that as deposit of rent by the tenant in the case under Section 30 of the Act from 7.10.1984 to 6.3.1985 (5 months) made on 5.1.1985 was invalid hence tenant was defaulter in the payment of the rent. Even if the amount of Rs. 73.32 paid as water tax by the tenant on behalf of landlord is deducted still tenant will remain defaulter for four months which is sufficient for eviction under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. Apart from it tenant had also become defaulter for further two months i.e. from 7.3.1985 till 6.5.1985 when notice dated 13.5.1985 was served upon him. Landlord was fully justified for refusing to accept the money order as total rent due had not been sent through the said money order.” 3. The first argument of learned counsel for the tenant petitioner applicant is that in the first notice dated 28.9.1984, copy of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition the demand was for payment of arrears of rent (charha hua kiraya), hence it could not be treated to be a notice under Section 30 of the Act signifying the willingness to accept the rent in future. It has further been argued that through the said notice tenancy had been sought to be terminated and tenant was directed to vacate the house in dispute on the expiry of 30 days from the date of notice. 4. The second argument is that the tenant had deposited house and water tax for the entire house thrice while the Courts below took into consideration only one deposit of Rs. 146.64. 4. The second argument is that the tenant had deposited house and water tax for the entire house thrice while the Courts below took into consideration only one deposit of Rs. 146.64. In this regard it has been argued that two more receipts of payment of house and water tax of the entire house had been filed before the lower revisional Court as additional evidence and the same had been taken on record, however the lower revisional Court did not consider the effect of this deposit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, half of the amount of both these deposits should also have been deducted from the rent payable by the tenant and if it had been done then tenant would not have been treated to be defaulter for four or more months when second notice was given on 13.5.1985. 5. A copy of the application filed by the petitioner before the revisional Court for adducing additional evidence has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit sworn on 22.2.2007. Annexure SA-2 is order dated 20.11.2002 passed by the revisional Court allowing the said application. 6. I do not propose to decide the second argument. 7. In my judgment dated 8.9.2005, I wrongly mentioned that through the first notice (the correct date of which is 28.9.1984) demand for direct payment of tax had been made. In the said notice (Annexure-II to the writ petition), demand for rent alongwith water tax, house tax and interest had been made and through the said notice tenancy had also been terminated on expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and delivery of the possession of the house in dispute was demanded. In the second notice dated 13/14.5.1985, copy of which is Annexure-IV to the writ petition, reference was made to the earlier notice and tenancy was again terminated. 8. As tenancy had already been terminated through the first notice, hence there was no need to terminate that again. If the suit is treated to be based on the first notice, then as held by me in the judgment, under review, the tenant was not defaulter. However, if for the purposes of determining the default the second notice is to be taken into consideration and not the first notice then the principle that the second notice waives the first notice will have to be applied fully. 9. However, if for the purposes of determining the default the second notice is to be taken into consideration and not the first notice then the principle that the second notice waives the first notice will have to be applied fully. 9. Accordingly, in either contingency tenant cannot be evicted. If the first notice stands then at that time tenant was not defaulter and second notice was redundant. If second notice stands, then first notice will have to be taken as superseded and waived hence deposit made under Section 30 after the said notice i.e. on 5.1.1985 will have to be taken as correct. The first notice cannot be split into two parts, either it can be taken as a whole or not at all. In this regard reference may be made to Section 113 of Transfer of Property Act and particularly its Illustration (b). The said section is quoted below: “113. Waiver of notice to quit.—A notice given under Section 111, clause (h), is waived, with the express or implied consent of the person to whom it is given, by any act on the part of the person giving it showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. Illustrations (a) A, the lessor, gives B, the lessee, notice to quit the property leased. The notice expires. B tenders, and A accepts, rent which has become due in respect of the property since the expiration of the notice. The notice is waived. (b) A, the lessor, gives B, the lessee; notice to quit the property leased. The notice expires, and B remains in possession. A gives to B as lessee a second notice to quit. The first notice is waived.” 10. In view of the above review petition deserves to be allowed and my judgment and order dated 8.9.2005 deserves to be set aside and writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside impugned judgments, decrees and orders. 11. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Through my judgment and order dated 8.9.2005, six months time to vacate was granted to the petitioner on the condition that petitioner paid rent @ Rs.500/- per month. Through interim order passed in the review petition, petitioner was directed to continue to pay Rs.500/- per month as rent which he is paying. 13. 11. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Through my judgment and order dated 8.9.2005, six months time to vacate was granted to the petitioner on the condition that petitioner paid rent @ Rs.500/- per month. Through interim order passed in the review petition, petitioner was directed to continue to pay Rs.500/- per month as rent which he is paying. 13. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J., 2004(2) ARC 64 and H.M. Kichlu v. A.D.J., 2004(2) ARC 652, that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the Courts below, writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. 14. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda (supra), I placed reliance upon the Supreme Court authority of M.V. Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 602 , where it was held that it was essential to provide for periodical enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Acts. The Supreme Court has further held that frozen rents are giving rise to lawlessness and landlords out of frustration are approaching muscle man to get the premises vacated and Courts of law are becoming redundant in this sphere. This authority has recently been followed by the Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) by L.Rs. v. Union of India and another, (2008) 5 SCC 287 : 2008 (71) ALR 499, part of Para-29 and Para-34 of which are quoted below : “29. It is trite to say that legislation which may be quite reasonable and rationale at the time of its enactment may with the lapse of time and/ or due to change of circumstances become arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the doctrine of equity and even if the validity of such legislation may have been upheld at a given point of time, the Court may, in subsequent litigation, strike down the same if it is found that the rationale of classification has become non-existent. 34. 34. In Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and others v. State of Maharashtra and another (supra), the Court found that the criteria for determination and fixation of rent by freezing or by pegging down of rent as on 1.9.1940 or as on first date of letting, had, with the passage of time become irrational and arbitrary but did not strike down the same on the ground that extended period of Bombay Rent Act was coming to an end on 31.3.1998.” 15. Under U.P. Rent Control Act, there is no provision of enhancement of rent after October, 1972 [Except where landlord is public charitable or public religious institution (Section 9-A) or government is tenant (Section 21(8)]. In the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda, I have also placed reliance upon the authority of Supreme Court in “Shangrila Food Products Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India”, AIR 1996 SC 2410 , paragraph 11 of which is quoted below : “It is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and pass appropriate orders to give the parties complete and substantial justice. This jurisdiction of the High Court, being extraordinary, is normally exercisable keeping in mind the principles of equity. One of the ends of the equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If there be any unfair advantage gained by a party priorly, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court can take into account the unfair advantage gained and can require the party to shed the unfair gain before granting relief.” Thereafter in Para-8 of the aforesaid authority of Khursheeda, I held as under : “Rent Control Act confers a reasonable advantage upon the tenant of protection against arbitrary eviction. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bona fide need of the landlord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alteration etc. This advantage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equitable. Tenant under the Rent Control Act cannot be evicted except on specific grounds like bona fide need of the landlord, arrears of rent, subletting and material alteration etc. This advantage is also coupled with the advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent. The latter advantage cannot be said to be either reasonable or equitable. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of S.F.P. v. L.I.C, AIR 1996 SC 2410 , has laid down that while granting relief to a party the writ Court can very well ask the said party to shed the unfair advantage which it gained under the impugned order. By slightly extending the said doctrine it may safely be held that while granting the reasonable advantage to the tenant conferred upon him by the Rent Control Act the tenant may be asked to shed the un-reasonable arbitrary advantage conferred upon him by the said Rent Control Act. The writ Court therefore while granting or maintaining the relief against arbitrary ejectment to the tenant can very well ask the tenant to shed the un-reasonable benefit of the Rent Control Act granted to him in the form of immunity against enhancement of rent, however inadequate the rent might be. Tenant will have to shed the undue advantage of immunity from enhancement of rent under the Rent Control Act to barter his protection from arbitrary eviction provided for by the said Act.” 16. Accordingly, while allowing review petition as well as writ petition it is directed that w.e.f. April, 2011 onwards petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord respondent @ Rs.1000/- per month inclusive of house tax etc. No further amount over and above Rs.1000/- per month shall be payable by the tenant. ——————