Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— List revised. No one appears for the respondent. Heard Sri S. Mirza, learned counsel for tenant applicant. This revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 05.08.2002 passed by J.S.C.C./IX A.D.J., Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No.31 of 1995. Defendant applicant was tenant of a building of which plaintiff opposite party was the landlord. The suit was filed for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. According to the plaint allegations, rent was Rs.7773/- per month including water tax/charges. The suit was filed after insertion of Section 2(1)(g) in U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 providing that the Act does not apply to the building rent of which is more than Rs.2000/- per month. Before filing of the suit, tenancy was terminated through notice dated 15.06.1995. In the notice, it was also mentioned that in case tenanted building was not vacated on the expiry of the period of notice, damages for use and occupation would be payable at the rate of Rs.50,900/- per month. These damages were calculated at the rate of Rs.10/- per square feet per month of the covered area. The damages at the said rate were claimed in the plaint w.e.f. 21.07.1995 when period of notice expired. Tenancy started in the year 1979 for a fix period. It was extended from time to time. The last extension was for five years w.e.f. 01.10.1989. However, after 30.09.1994 lease was not extended. The tenant filed written statement stating that the rent had been attached by the A.D.M., hence it was being deposited before the A.D.M. Liability to pay damages at the rate of Rs.50,900/- per month was denied. The rate of rent of Rs.7773/- per month was not denied but it was asserted that out of the said amount, the rent was Rs.6730/- per month and the remaining amount was of water tax/charges. During pendency of the suit, the building was vacated on 31.03.2001. Through the impugned decree, it was directed that tenant applicant should pay damages at the rate of Rs.10/- per square feet per month (Rs.50900/- per month) from 21.07.1995 till 31.03.2001. As the building had already been vacated on 31.03.2001, hence in this revision, the only dispute is regarding rate of rent/damages for use and occupation pendente lite. In my opinion, the damages awarded by the court below are highly excessive. As the building had already been vacated on 31.03.2001, hence in this revision, the only dispute is regarding rate of rent/damages for use and occupation pendente lite. In my opinion, the damages awarded by the court below are highly excessive. Lease was renewed in 1989 at the rate of Rs.7773/- per month inclusive of all taxes. The agreed rent of 1989 should have been taken to be the basis for determining damages in 1995 when the suit was filed. In my opinion, giving reasonable increase per year to the market value of the property in 1989 the rate of rent/damages for use and occupation in 1995 should be Rs.12,000/- per month. Accordingly, Revision is allowed in part. Impugned decree regarding rent/damages for use and occupation per month is modified and it is directed that since 21.07.1995 till 31.03.2001, tenant should pay rent/damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. _____________