Hari Swarup, J.

This revision arises out of a suit for ejectment of the Defendant from the building in dispute. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was the tenant and the tenancy having been terminated he was liable to be ejected. In defence it was urged that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The trial court held that the building was constructed within ten years of the enforcement of' the Act and hence it was not covered by the Act. The Defendant went up in revision and urged that the finding of the trial court was per-verse. Some further evidence was led in revisional court by the Defendant and in rebuttal evidence was led by the Plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge also on the basis of the evidence subsequently produced before him agreed with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the revision.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that evidence of the Defendant before the revisional court consisted of large number of documents but the same have not been considered. It is immaterial because the other evidence