Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—On a reference having been made by a learned Single Judge, who entertained doubts about the correctness of an earlier decision of the Court in Sheo Prakash Chandra Mehta v. IIIrd ADJ, 2008(3) ARC 841, to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for consideration of the following question by a Full Bench, the office in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice has placed the matter before us, for its adjudication :

“Whether the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applies to a case where under the agreement, tenant voluntarily vacates the tenanted accommodation for demolition and new construction and after demolition and new construction, new constructed premises is let out to the tenant.”

2. The relevant facts in this regard may be noticed in brief. The facts are few and not much in dispute.

3. It is an accepted position before us that Gopal Das (hereinafter referred to as tenant) was a tenant of an old shop belonging to Bal Krishan (hereinafter described as landlord. These two parties on 17th September, 1998 entered into a compromise, outside the Court. The tenant agreed to vacate the then existing shop which was under his possession and the landlord agreed to let out him a front shop in the market, which was then under construction, after the completion of the construction.

4. It is common case of the parties that the landlord in pursuance of the above compromise in the month of December, 1998 did deliver the possession of the newly constructed shop which was occupied by the tenant.

5. There was absolutely no dispute between the parties for a period of about ten years.

6. The dispute arose when the tenant failed to pay the rent regularly. The landlord gave a notice dated 12.1.2009 demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. Ultimately, the SCC Suit No. 34 of 2009 was filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and eviction alleging that the tenancy has been terminated by serving a notice dated 12.1.2009 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as the tenant failed to pay the rent. It was further pleaded that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to tenanted shop as it is a new construction. The construction was raised after getting the map sanctioned by the Prescribed Authority on 20.2.1996 and it was let out for the first time to the defendant tenant on 23.1.1999. Section 2(2) of the Act grants exemption to “new construction” for a period of ten years (now it has been increased to forty years).

7. In defence, the tenant raised various pleas with which we are presently not concerned except the one that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the given facts are applicable. He, in substance, pleaded that he being an old tenant, the old tenancy continues and the disputed shop would be governed by the Act No. 13 of 1972, in view of Section 24(2) thereof.

8. The trial Court framed two issues and one of them was whether the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable or not. The case of the defendant tenant was that notwithstanding the fact that the new construction was raised as alleged by the landlord even then the shop in question shall be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in view of the compromise referred to above entered into between the parties. In substance, the contention of the tenant was that the old tenancy continues even though the old shop was demolished and he has been shifted to a newly constructed shop.

9. The said plea has been negatived by the trial judge and it has been held by him under issue No. 3 that there is no continuance of the old tenancy and in view of the fact, which is no longer in dispute between the parties, the shop/super structure let out to the defendant tenant is a new construction within the meaning of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 therefore the building will enjoy the exemption (holiday) for a period of te