JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manoj Goswami, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner's suit for eviction of the respondents from the tenanted portion has been dismissed by the courts below. The main ground on which the suit has been dismissed is that the rent of the 5 rooms situate on the first floor of the building which are under tenancy of the respondents is Rs. 120/- and therefore the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to it. It means that the petitioner can bring a suit for eviction of the tenant only on the grounds as specified in Section 20 of the Act and not by simply terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 3. The argument advanced from the side of the petitioner in the courts below was that in the building there are 15 other tenants and the rent realized from all the tenants together is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. Therefore, in view of Section 2 (g) of the Act, it is exempt from the applicability of the Act. 4. The courts below on the basis of the two decisions of this Court reported in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar/Addl. City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and others 1997 (1) ARC 376 and Ajay Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Shanti Singh and others 1998 (2) ARC 14 held that the rent of the entire building is not to be taken into account for the purposes of exempting the tenancy from the applicability of the Act rather the rent of only the tenanted portion is relevant and has to be taken into consideration. 5. No contrary authority on the subject has been cited. 6. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.