Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The petitioner is a tenant of a shop in building No. 343-A (private No. 343-A/10 and present No. 917) Jokhan Bagh, Civil Lines, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the shop in dispute’). The landlord of the shop is Smt. Malti Agarwal (the respondent herein).

2. Before the petitioner was inducted as the tenant of the shop in dispute, he was occupying another smaller shop in the same building, in pursuance of a lease agreement dated 27.5.1981 whereunder, the rent was Rs. 500/- per month and the tenancy was for a period of 15 years with an option of renewal for a further period of five years. It is admitted case of the parties that in the year 1986-87, an adjoining shop in the tenancy of one Mohd. Qamar was got vacated and the said shop alongwith the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner, were merged together by undertaking extensive modifications and constructions. Whereas, the shop earlier in the tenancy of the petitioner measured 12.6' x 14.6', the new shop i.e., the disputed shop, now measures 30' x 20'. In pursuance of an oral agreement between the parties, the rent of the disputed shop was enhanced to Rs. 750/- per month, out of which Rs. 250/- was to be adjusted in the expenses incurred by the petitioner in remodelling the structure.

3. The respondent-landlord filed SCC Suit No. 8 of 1991 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. In the said suit, the respondent-landlord took a specific plea that the disputed shop now in the tenancy of the petitioner since 1.2.1987, is a new construction within the meaning of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (The Act) and is exempt from the provisions thereof. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement in which it was admitted that during the year 1986-87, after getting the adjoining shop vacated from Mohd. Qamar, the two shops were merged together. However, it was pleaded that there was no default in payment of rent and tenancy of the petitioner was of a permanent nature and thus, he could not be evicted.

4. The Judge Small Causes Court, by judgement dated 3.9.2003 dismissed the suit holding that under the registered lease deed dated 27.5.1981, the tenancy being for a duration of 15 years, the petitioner could not be evicted before expiry of the said period. The suit for eviction was found to be bad in law. However, while deciding the question whether the provisions of the Act are applicable or not, it was specifically held that the new constructions undertaken during the year 1986-87, were so extensive in nature that the new structure now in the tenancy of the petitioner, would be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion thereof, and thus exempt from the provisions of the Act.

5. The respondent-landlord, aggrieved by the judgement of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 3.9.2003 dismissing the suit, preferred Civil Revision No. 831 of 2003 before this Court. During the pendency of the revision, the respondent-landlord served a fresh notice dated 7.4.2011 upon the petitioner seeking to terminate his tenancy. Consequently, Civil Revision No. 831 of 2003 pending before this Court was got dismissed as withdrawn on 11.5.2011, followed by filing of SCC suit No. 17 of 2011. It was pleaded therein that the remodelled shop in the tenancy of the petitioner was held to be a new construction in SCC Suit No. 8 of 1991 and the tenancy of the petitioner having been terminated by notice dated 7.4.2011, he is liable to ejectment.

6. The suit was contested by the petitioner admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was admitted that extensive constructions and modification were undertaken in the year 1986-87 and the remodelled shop was let out to the petitioner. However, it was claimed that the petitioner had deposited rent in proceeding under Section 30 of the Act being Misc. Case No. 25 of 2004. The same was duly allowed and thus, the respondent-landlord is now estopped from contending that the provision