Judgment

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for res­pondent No. 3 who is the real contesting respondent finally and are disposing off this appeal by their consent by this judgment.

3. The appellant is the tenant and the respondent No. 3 is the landlord. We will refer to tenant and landlord in the later part of this judgment for the sake of convenience. The landlord filed a suit from which the present proceedings arise, in 1991 on the ground that the relevant provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let­ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Rent Act’) did not apply to the suit premises which is a shop occupied by the tenant who is carrying on his profes­sion as barber. The rent of the shop is Rs. 350/- per month. It is the contention of the landlord that the disputed shop is newly constructed and it was first assessed to house tax on 1.4.1982 under order of the Municipal Board, dated 20.3.1982. The suit shop is situated in village Kandhala in district Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The contention of the landlord was that as the Rent Act was no