Court No. - 4 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 402 of 2014 Revisionist :- Gautam Sharma Opposite Party :- Sri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar Counsel for Revisionist :- Gulrez Khan,J.H. Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manu Saxena,Rajeev Trivedi,Rajesh Kumar Tripathi,Ram Kishor Gupta,Shailendra,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Shailendra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-tenant. 2. This revision-petition raises sole question of law, as to whether, the trial court was justified in rejecting the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent giving statutory benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 while returning a finding to the effect qua issue no.2 that Act No.13 of 1972 did not apply. The submission advanced is that, once the trial court has returned a finding to the effect that Act No.13 of 1972 did not apply, it was not justified in granting statutory benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act. 3. Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, however, sought to defend the order on the ground of deposit already made towards the arrears of rent, but could not dispute the finding on issue no.2, nor any revision has been filed on behalf of the respondent questioning the findings as to issue no.2 regarding non-applicability of Act No.13 of 1972. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that trial judge has returned a finding upon issue no.2, which was framed as to the applicability of Act No.13 of 1972, to the effect that Act No.13 of 1972 did not apply to the building in question. Once this finding has come to be returned by the trial judge, any benefit of the provisions contained any of the sections under the Act No.13 of 1972 could not have been made admissible in law and, hence, the findings on issue nos.4 and 5 as to the sufficient deposit made by the tenant- respondent under Section 20(4) to non suit plaintiff in eviction suit is liable to be held to be bad and is held bad. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the trial judge dated 13.08.2014 dismissing the suit and only by giving statutory benefit under Section 20(4) of Act No.13 of 1972 to the petitioner deserves to be set aside. 5. The judgment and order dated 13.08.2014 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST), Banda in JSCC Suit No.04 of 2010 is, accordingly, hereby, set-aside. 6. Since the Act No.13 of 1972 is held to be not applicable to the building in question and there-being no dispute regarding notice sent by the petitioner to the tenant-respondent under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, dated 14.10.2008 and 11.02.2010. The second notice would amount to determining the tenancy and, in such circumstances, therefore, the tenant- respondent deserved to be evicted. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per his instructions landlord does not want any arrears of rent towards the demised premises. 8. In view of the above and for the concession granted by the landlord-petitioner, while allowing this revision, I am decreeing the suit for eviction of the tenant-respondent. He is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises in question provided, he continues to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the damages for use and occupation of the premises in question right since January, 2025. The first deposit shall be made on 25.01.2025. The second and third deposit shall be made likewise on 25.02.2025 and 25.03.2025. The tenant-respondent in all circumstances shall deliver the possession of the premises in question on or before 05.04.2025. 9. Whatever amount already deposited in Court shall be released in favour of the landlord-petitioner. 10. Let an appropriate decree be drawn accordingly. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad