Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 16.8.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, VIIth, Gorakhpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 1982, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed against the revisionist.

Brief facts of the case are as follows :

2. The suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was inter alia filed on 24.11.1982 on the following allegations :

(I) The plaintiff/opposite party was the owner of the disputed shop situated at Bhalotia Market, Mohalla-Begpur Muglani alias Mian Bazar, Gorakhpur in which the revisionist/defendant was the tenant paying rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month.

(II) The defendant had taken the shop on rent for eleven months only and his tenancy was monthly starting from the first date of each English Calender month and ending on the last day of the said month.

(III) The defendant had executed memorandum of agreement of tenancy on 1.8.1981 for a period of 11 months i.e. for the period from 1.8.1981 to 30.6.1982.

(IV) The shop in question was constructed in the year 1978 hence U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply upon the same and the defendant had admitted this fact in the agreement dated 1.8.1981.

(V) The tenancy of the defendant came to an end on 30.6.1981.

(VI) It was also agreed that in case the defendant occupies the shop in dispute after efflux of time he will be liable to pay Rs. 400/- per month as damages of his unauthorized use and occupation.

(VII) That the defendant did not pay rent from December, 1981 till June 1982 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and also did not vacate the shop in question after the expiration of the tenancy by efflux of time, therefore, he defendant is liable to pay Rs. 400/- per month as damages for his unauthorized use and occupation in addition to arrears of rent and ejectment.

(VIII) The defendant was served with legal notice of demand ejectment dated 18.8.1982 by Registered A/D which was personally served on him on 19.8.1982 but inspite of personal service of notice of demand and ejectment the defendant paid no heed and neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the shop in question.

(IX) The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 2100/- as rent from December 1981 to June 1982 at the rate of Rs. 300/- and from July 1982 damages for his unauthorized use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month in addition to ejectment.

3. The revisionist filed his written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff/opposite party and inter alia stated that the shop was constructed in the year 1970 not in 1978 hence U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable. Rent was Rs. 250/- and the tenancy commenced from 1979. Rent was paid up to September, 1981 and from October, 1981, when it was refused by the landlord, rent was tendered through Bank Draft for the period from October, 1981 to July 1982 on 21.7.1982 for Rs. 3000/-. Plaintiff maliciously filed a suit being O.S. No. 271 of 1982 for recovery of interest Rs. 105/- but the same was dismissed by the Court below and the order passed by the Court below, which order was confirmed up to the High Court.

4. The Trial Court framed 8 issues for deciding the suit.

Issue No. 1- Whether the shop in question was constructed in the year 1978 and U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable? If so its effect.

Issue No. 2- Whether the tenant/defendant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. December, 1981? If so its effect.

Issue No. 3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month?

Issue No. 4- Whether the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is illegal and invalid?

Issue No. 5- whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief?

Issue No. 6- Whether is suit is barred by the principle of waiver.

Issue No. 7- Whether the tenant/defendant has sub-let the shop in question illegally without the consent of the owner of the shop to Preetam Medical Agency as it has been mentioned in para 7(