Judgment

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:- This appeal is preferred by the landlord against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court allowing Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 6510 of 1979 filed by the respondent-tenant.

2. The petitioner instituted a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant in the year 1977. According to him, the house was constructed in 1968 and, that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) did not apply to it. The suit was preceded by a notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the respondents tenancy. The respondent-tenant resisted the suit contending that the building was an old construction to which the Act was applicable. He submitted that since none of the grounds mentioned in sub-sec. (2) of S. 20 were made out, decree for ejectment cannot be passed.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Act applied to the house and because none of the grounds contemplated by Section 20(2) was made out, the suit must fail. It was held that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the said Act. A further finding recorded was to the effect that the defendant was not in arrears of rent for a period of four months as alleged by the petitioner-landlord and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was heard and allowed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Nainital. The learned District Judge found that the house was constructed in the year 1968 and, therefore, the Act did not apply thereto till 1-9-1978. Inasmuch as the suit was instituted on 1-6-1977 i.e., prior to the Act becoming applicable to the building, the suit was properly instituted. Since the Act did not apply, he held, Section 20 (4) was not available to the tenant. He, however, held that benefit of Section 39 of the Act was available to the tenant but since he did not comply with the requirements of the said section, it did not come to his rescue. Accordingly, he decreed the suit for eviction and also for rent.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Nainital, the tenant approached the Allahabad High Court by way of Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 6510 of 1979. The learned Judge who heard and disposed of the Writ Petition allowed the same purporting to rely upon the decision in Ratan Lal Shinghal v. Smt. Murti Devi, (1980) 4 SCC 258: (AIR 1980 SC 635) and another decision of the Allahabad High Court. According to the said decisions, the learned Judge held, the Act applied even to the buildings constructed prior to the commencement of the said Act, which means that eviction can be decreed only if one or the other ground mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 20 is satisfied. Since none of.the grounds mentioned in the said sub-section were satisfied in this case, the learned Judge held, the suit is liable to fail. It is the correctness of the said view that is questioned in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner Sri Hari Swarup submitted that the decision in Ratan Lal Shinghal (AIR 1980 SC 635) has been overruled in a later decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, (1982) 2 SCC 61. According to the later decision, he submitted, the Act became applicable to the said building only on 1-9-1978 and since the suit was instituted prior to the said date, it is saved and has to be decided without reference to the Act. The respondents counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the burden of proving the date of construction of the building lay upon the plaintiff and that he has singularly failed to establish that it was constructed in 1968. Indeed the house was an old one and it was merely repaired in the year 1968. He further submitted that the tenan