Satish Chandra, J.

1. THE applicant was a tenant. The landlord filed a suit for ejectment in 1973. The suit was decreed. The applicant went up in revision which was, however, dismissed. He has now come to this Court in revision.

2. THE concurrent findings are that the petitioner's sons had purchased four rooms in 1963. They did not care for it and allowed them to fall down with the result that when the suit was filed, no substantial structures were standing. The courts, however, held that it was immaterial for the application of proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. They did not give the benefit of sub-Section (4) to the defendant.

The findings of fact is that the petitioner's sons purchased a share in the house consisting of four rooms and that they were in possession of those rooms. They permitted them to fall down and did not repair or reconstruct them-These findings which are on questions of fact, do not disclose any jurisdictional defect. The proviso to sub-Section (4) says ;

"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose famil