JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This S.C.C. Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2013 passed by Judge Small Causes, Sultanpur. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as quantum of rent is not disputed and the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is also admitted. It has also been submitted that it was a tenancy at will and the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable because the rent was more than Rs. 2000, therefore, the said building was not covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It has also been submitted that by notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, tenancy has been terminated, therefore, it was a tenancy at will and the need of the landlord has wrongly been interpreted as if it was a need under Section 21 of Act No. 13 of 1972. 4. It has also been submitted that the provisions of Section 20(4) are not applicable but the court below has committed manifest error in extending the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. It has also been submitted that the learned court below has not considered this aspect that in case of tenancy at will if the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is sufficient, then the tenant was liable to be evicted even if he has paid the arrears of rent, therefore, the judgment of the court below is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present case because the rent was more than Rs. 2000/- per month. Therefore, neither the provisions of Section 21 nor the provisions of Section 20(4) were applicable in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act were applicable, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the court below for fresh consideration. 6. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and admittedly the rent of the shop in question was Rs. 2500/- per month. 6. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant and admittedly the rent of the shop in question was Rs. 2500/- per month. In view of provisions of Section 2(1)(g), the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to any building whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2000/-. Therefore, there remains no dispute that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. 7. Learned court below has come to the conclusion that because whole of the rent has been deposited under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, there was no default on the part of tenant. In the said judgment, learned court below has discussed the provisions of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and has not discussed the provisions of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act which are applicable. 8. As the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present case, therefore the findings given regarding Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 are perverse and the benefit of Section 20(4) can not be extended to the tenant. The whole of the judgment is based on the interpretation of provisions of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, which do not apply in view of provisions of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, the findings are perverse and illegal. Nothing has been discussed about the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. Accordingly, the findings being perverse are liable to be set aside and the matter requires remand for fresh consideration. 10. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. 11. The judgment and order dated 30.11.2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded to Judge Small Causes Court, Sultanpur, to decide the matter afresh in view of provisions of Sections 106 and 114 of the Transfer of Property Act after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the court below on 25.5.2015. 12. Office is directed to send the lower court record along with certified copy of this order to the court concerned through special messenger at an early date.