Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The facts as borne out from the record, in brief, are that there exist certain property bearing Municipal Nos. 302, 303, 304 and 305, situated at Western Kutchery Road, Meerut. It was owned by Sri Radhey Lal Singhal and Sri Surendra Singhal. The shape of property was like that of an Ahata consisting of two shops, one staircase and some open land, having a total area of about 176.57 sq. yards. One shop was in the tenancy of respondent, Arjun Kukreja, which is said to have commenced even before 1965. The petitioner purchased aforesaid property from its erstwhile owners, Sri Radhey Lal Singhal and Sri Surendra Singhal on 6.11.1971. It is said that a new plan got approved sometimes in 1977 from Meerut Development Authority and thereafter the entire existing construction was demolished and a new building was raised having three shops on the ground floor and other construction behind said shops. Besides, construction was also made on first floor and second floor. The construction of second floor consists of two rooms, verandah, kitchen and toilet. One of the aforesaid newly constructed shop thereafter was let out to defendant sometimes in 1978-79 on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- considering the fact that he was a tenant in one of the two shops earlier existed and hence after new construction, one shop was let out to him. The petitioner-landlord determined tenancy of respondent vide notice dated 14.9.1984 and thereafter instituted Small Cause Suit No. 8 of 1985. It was pleaded that the shop in question being new construction, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1972”) has no application thereon and since tenancy has already been determined, respondent-tenant is liable for eviction besides decree of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

3. The suit was contested by respondent alleging that the shop being old one, Act, 1972 is applicable and, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed. He specifically disputed the case set up by petitioner-landlord about new construction of disputed accommodation in 1978 and pleaded that the tenancy never had come to an end and instead it is continuing since very beginning.

4. The petitioner-landlord also filed a replication dated 10.10.1988 reiterating his case of new construction and new tenancy coming into existence in 1978.

5. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 9.1.1990 holding Act, 1972 inapplicable on the ground that the earlier construction had disappeared and substituted by a totally different construction. After demolition of erstwhile construction consisting of two shops and one staircase a totally new construction has come out and that being so the mere fact that the respondent had been an old tenant, would make no difference since Act, 1972 would not be applicable for a period of 10 years to new construction made and, therefore, in 1985 when suit was filed, Act, 1972 was inapplicable to the shop in dispute. It further held that benefit under Section 20(4) cannot be extended to respondent-tenant since Act, 1972 itself is not applicable to disputed accommodation.

6. Aggrieved thereto the respondent-tenant preferred SCC Revision No. 19 of 1990. The Revisional Court vide impugned judgment dated 6.5.2005 has reversed Trial Court’s judgment, and, allowing the revision, has dismissed petitioner’s SCC Suit No. 5 of 1985.

7. Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question, whether there was a new construction or not is a disputed question of fact and once the Trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that a new construction has come into existence in 1978 in place of existing old construction, the Revisional Court was not justified in acting as a Court of fact by interfering with the findings of fact recorded by Trial Court, as if