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

2. This is tenant’s writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3, Salamatulla filed S.C.C. Suit No. 47 of 1983 against tenant petitioner and another person Chhutan Ali. In the plaint of the suit it was stated that the shop in dispute was newly constructed and it was let out to the petitioner defendant No.1 w.e.f. 1.11.1973. Suit was filed on 8.9.1983 and it was alleged by the landlord that ten years’ period had not expired since completion of the shop in dispute when suit was filed, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable. By virtue of Section 2(2) of the Act, the Act does not apply to building for a period of ten years in case it is constructed before April, 1985.

3. The tenant denied the said allegation and asserted that shop in dispute was constructed much before 1973. Landlord alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 75/- per month. Tenant petitioner asserted that prior to November, 1973, rent was Rs. 50/- per month. However, in November, 1973, under agreement between the parties, the roof of the shop was replaced and some other construction, repair etc. were also made by the landlord and thereafter rent was agreed to be enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month.

4. It is not disputed that the old shop was allotted to tenant petitioner in 1965. It was also alleged that a corner of the shop had been sub-let by the tenant petitioner to defendant No. 2, Chhutan Ali (Chhutan Ali is not party in this writ petition).

5. Trial Court/J.S.C.C./Ist Additional Munsif, Amroha (which was in District Moradabad at that time) held that the Act was not applicable upon the building in dispute. Accordingly, suit for eviction was decreed. Decree for the arrears of rent, pendente lite and future damages was also passed. However, trial Court held that there was no subletting. The said judgment and decree was passed on 29.7.1986. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 7 of 1986, which was dismissed by IIIrd A.D.J., Moradabad on 19.5.1987, hence this writ petition.

6. Defendant petitioner filed written statement asserting therein that shop in dispute was allotted to him in 1965, that in the year 1972, landlord wanted to forcibly evict him from the shop in dispute, hence he filed a suit for prohibitory injunction against landlord being O.S. No. 277 of 1972, that in the said suit, a compromise was entered into between the parties on 2.8.1973 and suit was decreed on the basis of the said compromise. Copy of the compromise is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. According to the said compromise, the landlord was to construct/reconstruct/repair the shop by placing a roof of lintel. The condition No. 2 was that since date of the said agreement, the shop was being let out for ten years and during this period of ten years landlord would not get the shop in dispute vacated. It was also agreed that as against the old rent of Rs. 50/- per month, rent of Rs. 75/- per month would be paid by the tenant after reconstruction/replacement of the roof. It was also mentioned under Condition No. 1 that during the period of reconstruction, possession of the shop would remain with the tenant.

7. The trial Court held that the entire shop was newly constructed in October, 1973 after getting the map passed from the local authority, hence it was altogether new construction and not merely replacement of old roof by lintel roof.

8. The compromise was not denied by the landlord. The trial Court further held on the basis of the compromise that the shop was beyond repairs when compromise was entered into.

9. The trial Court has also observed that initially Salamatulla, respondent No. 3 in this writ petition and his brother Zamanatullah were landlords and the tenant had filed injunction suit against both of them and initially on 2.10.1972 (or 9.10.1972), agreement was entered into in between tenant and Jamanatullah according to which shop i