JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Service of notice upon respondent no. 2 is deemed to be sufficient in view of office report dated 9.7.2014 but no one has put in appearance and filed any counter affidavit. Therefore, the Court has no option but to proceed ex-parte. 3. Petitioner is the owner and landlord of the ground floor of the premises B-2/114 Bhadaini, Varanasi. One Brij Bhushan Singh respondent no. 2 applied for its allotment contending that it is vacant. On the allotment application proceedings for declaring the property to be vacant were initiated. A report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector dated 4.11.2009 in which apart from other things he stated that one Praveen Goyal the proprietor of M/s. Sari Niketan Private Limited who was in possession has informed that the rent of the shop is Rs. 7,000/- per month and therefore it is outside the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order dated 3.1.2008 declared the premises to be vacant vide order dated 12th July 2004. The petitioner applied for recall of the said order on the ground that it has been passed ex-parte. The application was rejected vide order dated 3rd January 2008. 4. The above two orders have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the premises in dispute is outside the purview of the Act as the tenancy is at the rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month. 6. Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act exempts the building whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2,000/- from the operation of the Act. Therefore, the moot question herein is whether the premises in dispute is on monthly rent exceeding Rs. 2,000/- ie. at the rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month to bring to outside the purview of the Act. 7. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in view of the fact that the building is over 100 years old refused to accept the rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month and at the same time held that there is no evidence on record to prove the rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month. 8. 7. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in view of the fact that the building is over 100 years old refused to accept the rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month and at the same time held that there is no evidence on record to prove the rent of Rs. 7,000/- per month. 8. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in passing the impugned order completely ignored the report of the Rent Control Inspector which mentions that he has been informed by the occupant that the rent of the premises is Rs. 7,000/- per month. 9. Apart from the above, rent receipts showing payment of Rs. 7,000/- per month were on record. The said receipts were not relied upon simply for the reason that there was no municipal assessment showing the rent value of the premises to be Rs. 7,000/- per month. 10. The payment of Rs. 7,000/- per month is said to be by cheques which in itself is sufficient evidence that the rent is Rs. 7,000/- per month. 11. The landlord himself has filed this petition alleging that the rent is Rs. 7,000/- per month. Once the occupant and the landlord both accepts that the rent is Rs. 7,000/-, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was not justified in holding otherwise. 12. Petitioner has made clear averments regarding rate of rent in paragraph 29 of the writ petition and the said averments have not been denied. Therefore, this Court has no option but to take the said averments to be true and correct ie. the rent is Rs. 7,000/- per month. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the conclusion is inevitable that Rent Control and Eviction Officer committed an error in not accepting the rent of premises to be Rs. 7,000/- per month. As from the above discussion, the rate of rent happens to Rs. 7,000/- per month, the premises is exempt from the operation of the Act and once it is exempted, the allotment proceedings under the Act can not be continued in respect of it. Accordingly, impugned order dated 12th July 2004 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.