JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the landlord's suit for his ejectment. The defendant appellant Sunehri Lal was the tenant of a shop in Mathura of which the plaintiff-respondent Gopal Das Seth is the owner and landlord. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that the shop was constructed after 1951 and therefore not governed by the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act; that as he needed the shop for his own use he determined the tenancy by a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the tenant did not vacate the accommodation; hence the suit. The appellant resisted the suit and denied that the shop was constructed after 1951. He contended that the Control of Rent and Eviction Act applied to this accommodation and therefore the permission of the District Magistrate was necessary before a suit could be filed for his ejectment. 2. The main question before the courts below was whether the shop had been constructed after 1st January, 1951. The trial-court held that the shop was reconstructed on the site of an old shop which had to be demolished after the Municipal Board condemned it as dangerous and required the landlord to repair or reconstruct it. This finding was upheld by the lower appellate court. The defendant has now come to this court in second appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant urged only one point in support of this appeal. He argued that the finding of the lower court that the reconstructed shop is new is based on no evidence and so perverse that no reasonable person could agree with it. He also argued that parts of the old shop were not demolished and now form parts of the new shop. 4. I permitted learned counsel to read the evidence of the plaintiff's and the defendant's witnesses, and ultimately he had to concede that there was evidence to support the finding of the court below. Therefore the argument that the finding is based on no evidence or perverse fails. 5. Learned counsel however argued that the very fact that a portion of the shop is old means that it cannot be regarded as a new construction. There are two short answers to this question. Therefore the argument that the finding is based on no evidence or perverse fails. 5. Learned counsel however argued that the very fact that a portion of the shop is old means that it cannot be regarded as a new construction. There are two short answers to this question. First, the appellant's evidence that parts of the shop are old has been disbelieved by the court below, and its finding cannot be reviewed in second appeal. Secondly even assuming that some parts of the construction are old, it does not follow that the entire accommodation must be regarded as old. In Pritam Das v. Satya Narain, 1964 A.W.R. 462 it was observed. In all cases where a portion of the old building were included in a building constructed after 1st January, 1951 the courts in determining whether such a building should be regarded as having been constructed after the prescribed date, should decide the question as one of fact and in doing so it should consider all the relevant and material circumstance such as the expenses incurred on the new construction, the value of the old portion and the saving effected by making it a part of the new, and so on. What are material facts depends on the circumstances of each case. By way of illustration if a new building is constructed at great expense but rests on old foundation, it will not be consistent with the purpose or policy of the Amending Act to hold that the construction is not new because the foundation existed from before 1st January 1951. On the other hand if a landlord renovates an old house for the purpose of giving it a new appearance and thus escaping the controls and restrictions imposed by the Act, the constructions cannot be regarded as having been made after the prescribed date. Applying this test to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the lower courts finding is vitiated by any error of law. The old shop was demolished under the directions of the Municipal Board. The landlord proved that he purchased building material for the constructions of the new shop and his witnesses testified that the shops were rebuilt as new. The appellant led no evidence to enable the court to hold that the old portions, if any, were so substantial that the entire construction must be regarded as old. 6. The landlord proved that he purchased building material for the constructions of the new shop and his witnesses testified that the shops were rebuilt as new. The appellant led no evidence to enable the court to hold that the old portions, if any, were so substantial that the entire construction must be regarded as old. 6. No other point was urged. 7. The meal is dismissed with costs.