JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of O.S. No. 139 of 1990 initiated against him by landlord respondent No. 3, Sitaram Sahi for eviction on the ground of default. First Additional J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 24.1.1996. Against the said decree, tenant petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 26 of 1996, which was dismissed on 10.10.1996 by 14th A.D.J., Kanpur hence this writ petition. 2. Landlord respondent No. 3 purchased the property in dispute from its previous owner through registered sale-deed dated 26.6.1989. Petitioner was continuing as tenant since before that. Property in dispute consists of two rooms on the ground floor. Landlord had asserted that rate of rent alongwith taxes etc. was Rs. 36.50 per month. However, tenant pleaded that it was only Rs. 26.50 per month. In this regard both the Courts below found the version of the tenant to be correct. 3. In respect of default which was the only ground taken for eviction, tenant pleaded that he had deposited the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Munsif in Case No. 79/70 of 1990. In para-4 of the writ petition, it has been stated that money order was refused by the landlord on 27.12.1989 as per endorsement of the postman which was filed before the trial Court and Munsif under Section 30 of the Act had passed the order permitting the petitioner to make deposit on 24.1.1990. The said case was ultimately dismissed in default on 13.2.1991. The suit was filed on 16.3.1990. In para-4 of the written statement, tenant admitted that in June, 1989 itself he became aware about the sale-deed dated 26.6.1989. In the same para it was also stated that respondent No. 3 was not accepting the rent hence rent was sent through money order, which was refused, thereafter rent for eight months from 1.6.1989 to 31.1.1990 at the rate of Rs. 26.50 per month was deposited in Misc. Case No. 79/70 of 1990. The trial Court under issue Nos. 2 and 3 held that according to the own case of the tenant he had deposited eight moths’ rent (from 1.6.1989 to 31.1.1990) under Section 30 of the Act and Rs. 26.50 multiplied by eight comes to Rs. 212.50 while tenant had admittedly deposited only Rs. Case No. 79/70 of 1990. The trial Court under issue Nos. 2 and 3 held that according to the own case of the tenant he had deposited eight moths’ rent (from 1.6.1989 to 31.1.1990) under Section 30 of the Act and Rs. 26.50 multiplied by eight comes to Rs. 212.50 while tenant had admittedly deposited only Rs. 185.50 which was only seven months’ rent (26.50 x 7 = 212.50), hence at the time of notice petitioner was defaulter. This one month’s rent was subsequently deposited, however the revisional Court held that subsequent deposit was not sufficient. 4. The landlord purchased the property on 26.6.1989 and did not claim any right to the rent prior to the said date. It was also not stated that till then any rent was due. In the plaint as well as in the notice rent was claimed from 26.6.1989. In fact on 24.1.1990 even the rent from 26.12.1989 till 25.1.1990 had not fallen due hence on 24.1.1990 only six months rent was due. Accordingly, the rent deposited by the tenant from 1.6.1989 was to be treated as rent from 26.6.1989 till 25.1.1990 i.e. seven months. Accordingly, when notice was given, petitioner was not defaulter hence the suit for eviction on the ground of default was not maintainable. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Suit of the landlord respondent No. 3 is dismissed. 5. In this writ petition on 19.11.2012 when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, following order was passed on the order sheet: “Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit of the writ petition. On inquiry from the Court whether the tenant would agree to pay Rs. 2650/- per month as rent instead of Rs. 26.50 per month in case the writ petition is allowed, the learned counsel for the petitioner tenant has expressed his readiness for the same. Judgment reserved.” Accordingly, it is directed that w.e.f. February, 2013 onward tenant petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord respondent No. 3 at the rate of Rs. 2650/- per month inclusive of all taxes. No further amount over and above Rs. 2650/- per month shall be payable. Even though the rent has been enhanced to more than Rs. 2000/- per month still Rent Control Act U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 shall continue to apply on the building in dispute. 2650/- per month inclusive of all taxes. No further amount over and above Rs. 2650/- per month shall be payable. Even though the rent has been enhanced to more than Rs. 2000/- per month still Rent Control Act U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 shall continue to apply on the building in dispute. Supreme Court in Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 2213 , has held that landlord can waive the applicability of exemption clause. Accordingly, the Court can also waive the applicability of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act according to which the Act does not apply to a building fetching more than Rs. 2000/- per month rent while enhancing rent from less than Rs. 2000/- per month to more than Rs. 2000/- per month. ——————