Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The only point involved in this writ petition is regarding interpretation of the word building’ used in Section 2(1)(g) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, which is quoted below:

”2. Exemptions from operation of Act.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following namely :

(a) to (f) ........................ (not relevant).

(g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees;”

3. The precise point involved and argued is as to whether the word building’ used in the aforesaid clause means only the tenanted building or in case tenanted accommodation is part of a big building, then the word building’ means the entire building of which tenanted accommodation is a part.

4. Landlord respondent No. 3, Ajay Kumar filed S.C.C. Suit No. 95 of 1998 against tenant petitioner for his eviction from the accommodation in dispute, which is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 400/- per month. It was also stated that tenant had agreed to enhance the rent to Rs. 800/- per month but he did not pay the enhanced rent w.e.f. June, 1998. Notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was given on 18.8.1998 in which it was stated that rent @ Rs.800/- per month had not been paid since 1.6.1998.

5. As admittedly tenant was not defaulter for more than three months when notice was served, (as required by Section 20 (2)(a) of the Act) hence eviction decree could be passed only if it was held that the Act was not applicable to the building in dispute.

6. Landlord’s case was that he was owner landlord of the whole building containing several shops of which tenanted accommodation was a part and the rent of the whole building (all the shops) was more than Rs. 2000/- per month, hence aforesaid exemption clause was attracted. J.S.C.C., Varanasi decreed the suit for eviction holding that the aforesaid exemption clause was attracted. Arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1998 @ Rs. 400/- per month were also awarded through the said decree. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, tenant petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 54 of 1999, which was dismissed on 5.1.2000 by District Judge, Varanasi, hence this writ petition.

7. The Courts below placed reliance upon 1997 (1) ARC 211, Punjab National Bank v. District Judge, Agra and 1997 (1) ARC 656, Nepal Singh v. Ist A.D.J., Shahjahanpur. Before the Courts below on behalf of tenant reliance was placed upon 1998 (2) ARC 14, Ajai Kumar Jaiswal v. Smt. Shanti Singh and others, taking the contrary view. In the authority of 1997 (1) ARC 376, Kuldeep Singh v. R.C. & E.O., it has been held that the word building’ used under the aforesaid clause covers only the tenanted building and not the entire accommodation of which tenanted building may be a part.

8. As far as the authority of Manager, Punjab National Bank (supra) is concerned, Supreme Court set aside the said judgment on 1.8.1997 on the ground that delay in filing appeal had not been condoned by the lower appellate Court and the said order was not set aside by the High Court hence writ petition could not be considered and allowed on merit. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court. Thereafter the said writ petition was dismissed in default on 3.1.2008.

9. Learned counsel has cited the following authorities of the Supreme Court :

(1) D.C. Bhatia and others v. Union of India and another, 1995 (1) SCC 104;

(2) Vasu Dev Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 2006 (12) SCC 753;

(3) Ramanlal Bhailal Patel and others v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (5) SCC 449.

10. The Supreme Court in D.C. Bhatia’s case (supra) upheld the validity of similar provision contained in Delhi Rent Control Act holding that fixation of cut-off point (rent) at Rs. 3,500/- per month was not arbitrary as tenant is paying rent more than Rs. 3,500/- per month and he cannot be said to belong to the weaker section in India so as to get protection under the Act. From the above authority, it i