JUDGMENT M. P. Saxena, J.:- This is plaintiffs revision application against the judgment and order dated 21-10-1974 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut. 2. The plaintiff-revisionist is the landlord of the disputed accommodation of which the defendant-opposite party is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 53/-. The accommodation in possession of the defendant-opposite party consist of one room one shop in front portion, a portion of old Verandah, old Kitchen, old Latrine and bath room which are common and the Sehan. According to the plaintiff-revisionist, the construction of the disputed building was completed in March 1963. House portion of this building was out to the defendant for residential purposes and the shop was given to him for user as a Baithak. The defendant started running a Printing Press in this shop without the consent of the plaintiff. Therefore, the latter gave a notice to the defendant on 25-7-1970 terminating his tenancy but in vain. Hence the plaintiff filed that suit for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed building, recovery of Rs. 159/- as arrears of rent from 6-6.1970 to 5-9-1970 Rs. 6/- as damages for use and occupation and pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 3/- per day. 3. The defendant-opposite party contested that suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the building was constructed before 1951 and was governed by section 39 of the new Act. He denied that the shop was being used for inconsistent purpose. It was let out for running a printing Press and was being used the same purpose. The validity of the notice and the amount of damages claimed were also challenged. 4. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the construction of the building started in November 1962 and was completed in the year 1963. He further held that the notice to quit was valid and the defendant was using the shop for the same purpose for which it was let out to him. He, therefore, decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for the recovery of Rs. 159/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 6/- as damages and Rs. 3/- per day as pendente lite and future damages. 5. The defendant filed a revision application under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. He, therefore, decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for the recovery of Rs. 159/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 6/- as damages and Rs. 3/- per day as pendente lite and future damages. 5. The defendant filed a revision application under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that two shops on the ground and the entire constructions in the first floor were newly constructed. The rest of the constructions of the ground floor were old He was, therefore, of the view that the building was governed by the provisions of the new Act and the defendant was entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act. He further held that the defendant had complied with the requirements of section 39. Accordingly, the decree for ejectment and damages for use and occupation was set aside but it was confirmed with regard to arrears of rent. 6. The landlord filed this revision with regard to the relief of ejectment rejected by the learned lower revisional court. When the case up for hearing it transpired that the question when the disputed building should be deemed to have been completed was not decided by any of the lower courts in accordance with law. Therefore, the following point was referred to the lower revisional court for finding with the directions that he will permit fresh evidence to be given on it: "When the building should be deemed to have been completed within the meaning of section 2(2) Explanation I and whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 apply to it." The learned lower revisional court has returned the finding according to which the two shops on the ground floor will be deemed to have been completed on 1-4-66 and the remaining portion of the ground floor will be deemed to have been completed on 1-4-1961. The opposite party alone has filed objections to this finding. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and have considered the whole matter. As stated above, the portion out to the defendant-opposite party consists of one room, one shop, a portion of Verandah, kitchen, latrin, bath room and Sehan on the ground floor, except the shop. The rest of the constructions are old and were raised sometime in 1957-58. They were first assessed in 1961. As stated above, the portion out to the defendant-opposite party consists of one room, one shop, a portion of Verandah, kitchen, latrin, bath room and Sehan on the ground floor, except the shop. The rest of the constructions are old and were raised sometime in 1957-58. They were first assessed in 1961. Therefore, the learned lower revisional court held that these constructions will be deemed to have been completed on 1-4-1961. The shop on the ground floor appears to have been constructed later and it was first assessed in 1966 and it will be deemed to have been completed on 1-4-1966. It is for this reason that the learned lower revisional court has given two dates in view of the proviso attached to Explanation I. Clause (c) of Explanation I, lays down that where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be construction on the date of completion of the said addition. In the instant case it is admitted at both ends that only the front shop on the ground floor is a new construction and the rest of the accommodation which represents major portion of the tenanted building is old construction. Therefore, the entire tenanted accommodation will be deemed to be old construction and within the meaning of Section 2(2) Explanation I will be deemed to have been completed on 1-4-1961. On 15th July, 1972, when the new Act came into force this building came under its operation. The defendant was entitled to claim the benefit of section 39 of the Act by depositing the entire arrears of rent, interest thereon at the rate of rupees nine per cent and costs of the suit within one month from the date of commencement of the Act. In the instant case the rent was in arrears from 6-6-1970 and on 14-8-72 the defendant deposited Rs. 1790/- in the court. It was much in excess of the arrears of rent due, interest and costs of the suit. Therefore, he could not be ejected from the premises in suit. 8. Even if it be assumed that the question of completion of the disputed accommodation is to be decided in relation to the entire accommodation belonging to the landlord, the later cannot derive much benefit. Therefore, he could not be ejected from the premises in suit. 8. Even if it be assumed that the question of completion of the disputed accommodation is to be decided in relation to the entire accommodation belonging to the landlord, the later cannot derive much benefit. According to him, the whole building will be deemed to have been completed on 1-4-1966 and came under the operation of the new Act in April 1976. Within one month from this date the defendant could have deposited the entire arrears of rent, interest and costs and claimed the benefit of section 39/40 of the Act. As stated above, Rs. 1,790/- were deposited on 14-8-1972. Again Rs. 530/- were deposited on 5-7-1973 and in Execution Case No. 31 of 1974 a sum of Rs. 4,978.12 was deposited and in that connection an application (12-C) was moved on 25-5-1974. The revisionist landlord challenges its correctness but on no substantial basis. Even if the sum of Rs. 4978.12 includes the amount of earlier deposits, it will be clear that the entire arrears of rent due from, 6-6-1970 to 1-4-1976, interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 9/- per cent, costs of the suit were covered by it. Even on its basis the tenant was entitled to the benefit of sections 39/40 and the learned lower courts rightly extended this benefit and exempted the defendant from ejectment. 9. For all these reasons the revision application has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs on parties.