Prakash Krishna, J.— 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 24th September, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Moradabad in SCC Suit No. 3 of 2002 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant for ejectment of the defendants has been dismissed, the present revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act has been preferred. 2. The defendants-opposite parties herein are the tenants of the property in dispute on monthly rent of Rs.2437/-. The suit giving rise to the present revision was filed on the allegations that tenancy of the defendants-tenants has been determined by means of notice dated 5th January, 2002 which has been served on the defendants but they have not given any reply. 3. The suit was contested on the pleas that the plaintiff does not want to evict the defendants and want to enhance the rent. Earlier it had filed Case No. 10 of 1998, which was dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as five issues were framed by the trial court. Trial court under Issue no. 1 has found that the tenants are not defaulters in payment of rent. Under Issue no. 2, it has been found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 972 are not applicable. Issue no. 3 as to whether the suit is maintainable or not was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue no. 4 regarding jurisdiction was not pressed by the defendants. The suit for ejectment was dismissed on the ground that the defendants-tenants are not in arrears of rent. 5. Shri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the fact that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 972 are not applicable, whether a tenant is in arrear of rent or not, is of no consequence. Tenancy has been validly terminated by giving notice, it is not in dispute, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 972 are not applicable. Therefore, the court below has committed illegality in dismissing the suit. 6. In reply, learned standing counsel reiterates its stand which was taken before the trial court. He also submits that this matter was taken-up earlier by this Court and on the suggestion given by the Court, the defendants tried to compromise the dispute by enhancing the rent but landlord refused to agree. 7. 6. In reply, learned standing counsel reiterates its stand which was taken before the trial court. He also submits that this matter was taken-up earlier by this Court and on the suggestion given by the Court, the defendants tried to compromise the dispute by enhancing the rent but landlord refused to agree. 7. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Indisputably, in view of Section 2(1)(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 972, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 972 are not applicable to the building in question as the rent is above Rs.2000/- per month. Tenancy would be governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. It was month to month tenancy, which has been determined by giving notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. There is no issue either the notice was not given or the tenancy was not validly terminated. 9. In this view of the matter, the question as to whether the tenant is in arrears of rent or not is totally irrelevant. The court below was not justified in dismissing the suit. Since the landlord has not agreed for enhancement of rent and wants vacant possession, the court cannot compel the landlord to compromise. 10. In view of the above discussions, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit cannot be allowed to stand. A decree for eviction is inevitable. 11. At the end, learned standing counsel seeks time to vacate the building in question. 12. The defendants-tenants are granted time to vacate the disputed accommodation upto 31st July, 2012 provided the tenants deposit the entire arrears of rents and damages for use and occupation after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited for the period upto 31st July, 2012 within a period of one month from today before trial court. 13. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court below is set aside. The suit for eviction of the defendants for the premises in dispute is therefore, decreed with cost throughout. _