Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit no.13 of 2008, Hanuman Bux Goswami Trust Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Chaurasia. The suit had been filed by landlord respondent against the tenant petitioner for eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted shop in dispute situate at ground floor of house no.C.K. 4/23 situate at Mohalla Chaukhambha, Varanasi. It was stated in the plaint that plaintiff landlord was a public charitable trust hence U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 U.P. Act no.13 of 1972 was not applicable thereupon; rate of rent was Rs.45/- per month which had not been paid since August 1991 till November 2007 and tenancy was terminated through notice dated 7.12.2007. The tenant pleaded that U.P. Act no.13 of 1972 was applicable on the buildings in dispute and that he had received a notice from Smt. Kalawati Devi demanding the rent hence he was depositing the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act no.13 of 1972. The suit was decreed for eviction alone by J.S.C.C. Varanasi on 31.7.2012. Against the said decree the tenant petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision no.16 of 2012 which was dismissed on 9.1.2013 by A.D.J., Court no.2 Varanasi hence this writ petition. The trial court mentioned that the tenant had pleaded that Smt. Kapila Devi, the trustee ( Sanchalika) of the trust was realising the rent from the tenant and in July 1991 Smt. Kalawati daughter of Kapila Devi gave a notice to her demanding the rent and in a suit the civil court had held that Smt. Kalawati Devi was the trustee and not Smt. Savitri Joshi who had filed the suit as managing trustee of the trust. The trial court under issue no.3 discussed the applicability of U.P. Act no.13 of 1972. The tenant had pleaded that the trust was not a public charitable trust but a trust created for private benefit. The trust deed dated 11.6.1984 was filed before the trial court. In the trust deed the creator of the trust father of Smt. Savitri Devi mentioned that he had two daughters Smt. Kalawati and Savitri Joshi both were married, however husband of Savitri Joshi had died hence she was residing in Varanasi. The trust deed dated 11.6.1984 was filed before the trial court. In the trust deed the creator of the trust father of Smt. Savitri Devi mentioned that he had two daughters Smt. Kalawati and Savitri Joshi both were married, however husband of Savitri Joshi had died hence she was residing in Varanasi. It was also mentioned that idol of Sri Takur Radha Krishna Ji was installed in the house and he worshipped him and he intended to establish a Dharmashala for serving Hindu Public and arrangement for Sewa, Puja, Bhog and Utsav of the deity hence trust was being created by the name of Hanuman Bux Goswami Trust. Under Section 2( 1)( bb) it is provided that the Act does not apply to any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institutions. The said provision was inserted by U.P. Act no.5 of 1995 ( w.e.f. 26.9.1994). Prior to the said amendment it was provided under Section 2( 3) of the Act as follows: 2( 3) The State Government, if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of general public, may by notification in the Gazette exempt from all or any of the provisions of this Act any building which is owned by a public charitable or public religious institution and the whole of income derived from which is utilised for the purposes of that institution, and may in the like manner cancel or amend such notification. Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act was to the effect that if any public religious charitable or public religious institution sought exemption under Section 2( 3) of the Act then it could apply to the State Government. What documents were to accompany the application was also mentioned in the said Rule. Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has vehemently argued that as Rule 3 has not been deleted hence in order to claim exemption from operation of the Act, a Public religious institution has yet to seek permission of the Government examination. I do not agree with this contention. Rule 3 was framed to give effect to Section 2( 3) of the Act. After deletion of the said Section by U.P. Act no. 5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26.9.1994 the Rule became otiose. I do not agree with this contention. Rule 3 was framed to give effect to Section 2( 3) of the Act. After deletion of the said Section by U.P. Act no. 5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26.9.1994 the Rule became otiose. If the Government has forgotten to delete the Rule it can not have the effect of keeping Section 2( 3) alive. Accordingly, I do not have any fault with the findings of the courts below that U.P. Act no.13 of 1972 was not applicable. As far as the dispute of the two sisters is concerned it appears that the same has now been settled. However, that is not much relevant. The other sister Smt. Kamla did not file any impleadment application in the suit in question. She did not object to the filing of the suit by Smt. Savitri Joshi. In view of the Supreme Court authority reported in P.K. Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano AIR 2005 SC 2857 one of the owners or trustees can very well file the suit for eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Section 4 of the repealed Act i.e. U.P. Act no.5 of 1995 through which Section 2( 3) of U.P. Act no.13 of 1972 was deleted. Section 4( 2) is quoted below: Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the principal Act as amended by the Ordinance referred to in sub-section ( 1), shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act as it the provisions of this Act were in force at all material times. Suit was filed in 2008 i.e. after 13 years of the repeal hence the aforesaid provision does not help the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned judgements decree and order. Writ petition is dismissed. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that :- 1. Within six weeks from today petitioner tenant files an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/-( at the rate of Rs. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/-( at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within six weeks before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after six weeks. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs.6,000/- are not deposited within six weeks then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after six weeks till the date of actual vacation. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs.6,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application.