Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenant’) and Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the ‘landlord’) and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Judge, Small Causes/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 in SCC No. 9 of 2011.

3. The SCC No. 9 of 2011 was filed by the landlord on the ground that he is the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute, which was let out to the tenant on a rent at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month; the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘U.P. Act 13 of 1972’) is not applicable in the present case; the tenant has committed default in payment of rent, however, since the rent prior to 24.5.2008 has become time barred, therefore, the rent from 28.10.2008 to 7.5.2011 is being claimed from the tenant; a registered notice dated 5.4.2011 was sent to the tenant terminating his tenancy and demanding possession and arrears of rent from 28.10.2008, which was admittedly received by the tenant on 7.4.2011 and the same was replied by him on incorrect facts.

4. Regarding non-applicability of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the case of the landlord was that the shop in question is a new shop, which was re-constructed in the year 2000 alongwith other shops and all the shops were raised above ground level and a common lintel of all shops was put simultaneously and it was also claimed that tax on new shop was assessed from 1.10.2002 and after construction of new shops, the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs. 847/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 1,900/- per month. Even the first assessment of the old shop was made on 1.4.1986 and as such, the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is not applicable in the present case.

5. In reply, the tenant admitted the plaintiff as his landlord and that the shop was rented out to him at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month; receiving of the registered notice dated 5.4.2011 given by the landlord was admitted but it was claimed that the notice was based on incorrect facts and as such, the reply of the aforesaid notice was also sent through Advocate; the money orders for arrears of rent were sent to the landlord on 2.5.2011, which he refused to accept; since the rent was tendered by the tenant to the landlord but he did not receive the same and the same was deposited in the Court, as such, there was sufficient compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972; the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable as the shop in question was constructed in the year 1982.

6. Four issues were framed by the learned Court below. The first issue was as to whether the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are applicable or not in the present case. The second issue was as to whether the tenant was entitled for benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 or not. The third issue was as to whether the tenant had committed any default in making payment of rent and the fourth issue was as to whether the landlord is entitled to relief, if any.

7. All the four issues were decided against the tenant. The main controversy involved in the present case is as to whether U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is applicable in the present case or not?

8. On this issue, it was claimed by the landlord that initially the shop in dispute was assessed for the first time on 1.4.1986 and as such, U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is not applicable. It was also claimed that in the year 2000 the shop in dispute was newly constructed after demolishing the old shop alongwith adjoining shops and the ground level of all the shops was raised above road level and a new lintel was put at the same height alongwith all other shops and tax on new shop was levied w.e.f. 1.10.2002. Thus, the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 was not applicable in the present case. In support of this