Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri P.K. Khare, learned Counsel for contesting respondents. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 250 of 1995, Kamakhyadham Cliaritiable Trust Baba Bhoot Nath Ashram v. Smt. Pratibha Verma. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 480 per month. It was also pleaded in the plaint that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute for two reasons. Firstly, first assessment was made in September, 1990, hence that would be deemed to be date of con­struction and Rent Control Act would be applicable since 2030. Secondly, prop­erty belonged to public religious institution/trust [Section 2(1)(bb)] inserted w.e.f. 26.9.1994 by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995. It was also alleged in the plaint that tenant was defaulter. Tenant pleaded that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was appli­cable as building had been constructed much before 1990. In para-5 of the plaint, it was stated as follows: “That the aforesaid shopping centre and shop under the occupation of defendant has been assessed for the first time w.e.f. 30.9.1990.” 3. Trial Court/J.S.C.C. Lucknow dismissed the suit on 30.5.1997. The plaintiff had asserted that rate of rent was Rs. 480 per month, however tenant asserted that the rate of rent was Rs. 585 per month and deposited the same in a case under section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Trial Court held that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in dispute and tenant peti­tioner was not defaulter. Regarding applicability of section 2 (1)(bb), the Trial Court held that trust deed was not registered and it was not proved that it was public religious institution/ public charitable trust. Regarding date of construc­tion, the Trial Court held that petitioner was admittedly continuing as tenant since 1981, hence year of construction was 1981. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, landlord respondent No. 2 filed revision being S.C.C. Revision No. 88 of 1997, Kamakhyadham Charitable Trust Baba Bhoot Nath Ashram v. Pratibha Verma. 13th A.D.J., Lucknow allowed the revision on 22.3.1999, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and de­creed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. 4. 13th A.D.J., Lucknow allowed the revision on 22.3.1999, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and de­creed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. 4. As far as question of first assessment for house tax is concerned, the area here building in dispute is situate was beyond the municipal limits and it was only for the first time in 1990 when due to extension of limits of municipality, the area in question was included in the municipality and thereafter house tax was assessed. In my opinion as in 1981, when tenancy started there was no ques­tion of imposition of house tax as the building was not situate within any mu­nicipality hence subsequent inclusion of the area in municipality and imposi­tion of house tax would not alter the date of construction for a tenant who was continuing since before that. Accordingly, the findings of Revisional Court on this point are erroneous in law, hence reversed. 5. The second question is as to whether property belongs to public charita­ble trust or not. Lower Revisional Court held that trust deed had been filed and it was not necessary that trust deed should be registered. In this regard, para-6 of the plaint and 5 of the written statement are quoted below: “Para-6 of the plaint. -- That the plaintiff is a public religious institution/public charitable trust and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. Para-5 of the written statement -- (translated in English) That reply to the contents of para-6 of the plaint would be given at the time of argu­ment.” 6. In the additional pleas in the written statement, absolutely nothing was stated about this aspect of the matter. Accordingly, this fact was admitted that petitioner was charitable trust. Accordingly, in view of categorical ad­mission in para-5 of the written statement, petitioner cannot be heard to say that plaintiff is not a public charitable institution. 7. The finding on this aspect recorded by the lower Revisional Court is therefore affirmed. 8. Prior to the filing of the suit, tenancy had been terminated through no­tice sent through registered post on 18.4.1995. 9. Learned Counsel for tenant petitioner also argued that notice was not served upon the petitioner. 7. The finding on this aspect recorded by the lower Revisional Court is therefore affirmed. 8. Prior to the filing of the suit, tenancy had been terminated through no­tice sent through registered post on 18.4.1995. 9. Learned Counsel for tenant petitioner also argued that notice was not served upon the petitioner. However, this point was decided against the peti­tioner even by the trial Court which ultimately passed the judgment in favour of the petitioner. On the AD attached with registered notice some employee of the petitioner put his signatures after affixing stamp of Kamakhya Opticals, which is the trade name of the petitioner. Accordingly, it was sufficient ser­vice. 10. Accordingly, the point of date of construction is decided in favour of the tenant petitioner but the other two points, i.e., building belonging to charitable trust and service of notice are decided against the petitioner. 11. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. 12. Tenant petitioner is granted six months’ time to vacate on the following conditions: 1. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6000 (at the rate of Rs. 1000 per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. Lucknow and shall imme­diately be paid to the landlord respondent. 2. Within one month from today tenant- petitioner shall file an under­taking before the J.S.C.C. Lucknow to the effect that within six months from the date of this judgment, he will willingly vacate and handover pos­session of the property in dispute to the landlord respondent. 3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decretal amount due till date (after adjusting any amount already deposited) before the J.S.C.C., Lucknow for immediate payment to landlord-respondent. 4. If within one month undertaking is not filed or the amount of Rs. 6000 and the decretal amount are not deposited then from today till actual eviction tenant shall be liable to pay Rs. 2000 per month as rent/damages for use and occupation. 5. Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6000 and decretal amount property in dispute is not vacated within six months then since after six months till actual vacation tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay rent/damages @ Rs. 2000 per month. 2000 per month as rent/damages for use and occupation. 5. Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6000 and decretal amount property in dispute is not vacated within six months then since after six months till actual vacation tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay rent/damages @ Rs. 2000 per month. It is needless to add that this direction of payment of Rs. 2000 per month in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition and to get the accommodation in dispute vacated through execution. Petition Dismissed. ___________