Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.

Heard Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party-tenant.

2. By means of this revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2008 has been challenged by which a decree has been passed against the revisionist for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages, telephone charges and electricity charges.

3. The brief facts for deciding the revision in short are that the residential premises situated in Civil Lines, Jhansi was let out to tenant-revisionist @ Rs. 2,100/- per month apart from electricity and telephone charges payable by the tenant. The premises was a new construction of the year 1991-92, thus, the provisions of the Rent Control Act are not applicable for the reason that the building is newly constructed and the rent is more than Rs. 2,000/-. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent from 1st August, 2001. A notice of demand along with the termination of tenancy under Section 106 of T.P. Act was served upon the revisionist. The revisionist replied the same. When the notice was not complied