JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This petition is directed against the orders passed by Courts below, whereby landlord’s suit for eviction has been decreed. 2. Petitioner, who is tenant of the premises in question, submits that the orders impugned are illegal, inasmuch as on the first day of proceedings of suit for eviction, tenant-petitioner has already deposited entire arrears of rent and other dues, for which notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been served upon her, and therefore, petitioner was entitled for grant of protection under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and the suit for eviction could not have been decreed. 3. Substantiating this plea, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after service of notice under Section 106 of the Act and during pendency of present proceedings, respondent-landlord initiated action for eviction citing personal need under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972, which was initially allowed, but the same was set aside in appeal, and aggrieved by the appellate Court, a writ petition No. 25616 of 2012 has been filed, in which a specific plea by the respondent-landlord has been set up that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable upon the premises. Learned counsel submits that respondent-landlord cannot be permitted to set up inconsistent plea and once he has pleaded that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable upon the premises in question, it is not open for respondent-landlord to take a contrary stand, and both the Courts below have erred in accepting such inconsistent plea. It is also submitted that petitioner-tenant has no other alternative accommodation, and therefore, aspect of comparative hardship was required to be examined, but the same has not been looked into. 4. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable upon upon the premises in question, inasmuch as building has been put to assessment for the first time in the year 1988, and therefore, by virtue of Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, provisions of the Act itself were not applicable. It is further submitted that filing of application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was a result of misconceived advise received by the landlord, after a plea had been set up by the tenant that provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are attracted. It is stated that landlord has already not pressed writ petition No. 25616 of 2012. Submission is that the plea set up by landlord cannot be said to be inconsistent. Once provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not attracted, the issue of comparative hardship was not required to be examined, as it has been found that a notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act has been duly served, determining tenancy. Therefore, there is no error in the orders for eviction passed by the Courts below. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that on the factual matrix of the present case, it is undisputed that building in question has been put to assessment for the first time in the year 1988. Attention of the Court has been invited by learned counsel for the petitioner to a sale-deed and it has been contended that property itself was purchased by landlord in the year 1983, and as such, it would be presumed that building existed on the date of execution of sale-deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed the contents of sale-deed, from a perusal whereof, it transpires that what was purchased by landlord was a open piece of land, and no building existed thereon. Since transfer in favour of landlord is only of open piece of land and the building, which has been constructed thereupon, got assessed for the first time in the year 1988, and as such, the finding returned by both the Courts below that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not attracted cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. 6. So far as the plea taken by the tenant that respondent-landlord has been inconsistent in his stand is concerned, this Court finds that although a previous application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on account of personal need of landlord had been filed, but learned counsel has failed to invite attention of the Court to any factual averment either in the application or in the writ petition, wherein landlord has admitted construction of building prior to 1988. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the petitioner that it was on account of misconceived advise that such an application was filed cannot be said to be lacking in bona fide. Even otherwise, the writ petition No. 25616 of 2012 has been got dismissed as withdrawn. In such view of the matter, this Court finds that no benefit can be granted to the tenant-petitioner on account of filing of application by landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. This Court further finds that once the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 itself were not attracted, the question for consideration of comparative hardship of the parties was not required to have been gone into. No other point has been pressed. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. 7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is poor lady and has been running a shop of general merchandise, and therefore, she may be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premises in question. Considering it, it is provided that in case petitioner deposits decretal amount as well as advance rent for a period of nine months from today, alongwith an undertaking before the Court concerned within a month from today, that she shall vacate the premises in question immediately after expiry of nine months, petitioner shall continue to be in possession of premises for aforesaid period, whereafter she shall handover vacant peaceful possession of premises in question to the landlord-respondent. It is, however, provided that in case aforesaid condition is not complied by the petitioners, it would be open for the landlord-petitioner to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. 8. Subject to the above observations, this petition is consigned to records. ———————