YASHODA NANDAN, J. :- When this second appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he felt disinclined to agree with the views of this Court expressed in Dr. Kundan Lal v. Shamshad Ahmad (1964 All LJ 1120) : (AIR 1966 All 225) and Rahim Bux v. Mohammad Shafi (AIR 1971 All 16) and consequently referred the following two questions for consideration by a large Bench:

"1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case doctrine of frustration as contained in S. 56 of the Contract Act will apply and whether the tenancy was automatically terminated after the building had fallen down?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case relationship of landlord and tenant subsists even with regard to newly constructed shops and the plaintiffs can claim possession of the same?" That is how this appeal which should have been decided by a learned single Judge happens to be before this Bench.

2. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are that admittedly Radhey Kishan alias Chillar, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants before us, was the tenant of a shop constructed of mud-walls and Khaprail roofing situate in the town of Azamgarh since 30 years or m