N. K. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 7. 8. 1992 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge/judge Small causes Courts, Barabankl in S. C. C. Suit No. 4 of 1986, Smt. Sarla Mishra v. Naresh Chandra jain.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction from the disputed shop and recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendant revisionist with the allegations that the disputed shop was constructed in the year 1979 and as such, the provisions of U. P. Urban buildings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) were not applicable and the defendant had not paid rent for the month of February, 1986 and March, 1986. The rate of rent was said to be Rs. 700 per month. A notice-dated 31. 12. 1985 was sent to the defendant terminating his tenancy. The case of the defendant-revisionist was that there is no relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is contended that in fact Lal Ji Mishra, the father-in-law of the plaintiff was the landlord who admitted the defendant-applicant as tenant and the rent note was duly executed on 2. 1. 1979. It is also contended by the defendant that an advance of Rs. 10,000 was taken from the defendant for which it was agreed that Rs. 300 would be adjusted every month in re-payment of the advance and the remaining Rs. 400 would be adjusted in payment of the rent by the tenant to the landlord till the amount of Rs. 10,000 was not adjusted. According to the defendant, the rent was being paid regularly to Lal Ji Mishra who issued the rent receipts. It is contended by the defendant that the shop in dispute was not constructed in the year 1979 rather it was constructed in the year 1964-65. According to the defendant, before he was admitted as tenant, the shop remained vacant for an year and before that Pyare Lal and Basant Lal were the tenants of the said shop for several years. No rent was even paid to Smt. Sarla Mishra.

( 3 ) THE learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties to the suit decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction from the disputed shop and for recovery of rent and damages. The learned trial court recorded findings on three Issues. It was held by the learned trial court that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was duly served and it was a legal and valid notice, that, the provisions of the Act are not applicable over the disputed shop and Smt. Sarla Mishra is the landlord on the basis of the judgment of the Court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow in a suit which was filed by Smt. Sarla Mishra against her father-in-law Lal Ji Mishra in which Smt. Sarla mishra has been declared to be owner of the property in suit and that property includes the disputed shop.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid findings, the defendant-revisionist has preferred this revision.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.

( 6 ) SO far as the validity of the notice and service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, neither party has placed any argument before me and this finding is not assailed at all. The two issues on which the judgment of the trial court is based are issue Nos. 2 and 3. Out of these two issues, the first issue relates to the question as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable over the disputed shop or not? Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act provides as follows :

" (2) Except as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 12, Sub-section (1a) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24a, 24b, 24c or Sub-section (3) of Section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed : provided that where any building is constructed substantially out of funds obtained by way of loan or advance from the State Government or t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document