JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This defendant's revision application is directed against the order and decree of the courts below decreeing the plaintiff-opposite party's suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant. 2. The plaintiff opposite party let out the shop in question to the defendant-applicant on rent at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem. In 1973 after terminating the tenancy of the defendant the plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent for the period 1.10.1973 to 20.12.1973 with pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem and also for a decree for ejectment of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the shop was constructed in 1965, as such it was not subject to the control of the provisions of U P. Act XIII of 1972. The defendant applicant contested the suit on the ground that the shop in dispute was constructed in 1962 and it was subject to the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and as none of the grounds as contemplated by section 20(2) were available the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. The defendant further asserted that the property in question could not fetch more than Rs. 125 per month for its use and occupation. He further assailed the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy. On appraisal of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the trial court held that the shop in dispute was constructed in 1962 and not in 1965 as asserted by the plaintiff. It further held that the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 were applicable to the shop and the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as no grounds for filing the suit against the defendant existed as contemplated by section 20,2) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The trial court further held that since the defendant had deposited the entire rent, interest and cost of the suit at the date of hearing of the suit he had relieved himself from the liability of ejectment. On these findings the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit with regard to the relief of ejectment but it permitted the plaintiff to with draw the amount deposited in the court. On these findings the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit with regard to the relief of ejectment but it permitted the plaintiff to with draw the amount deposited in the court. On revision by the plaintiff, the Additional District Judge set aside the findings of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession of the shop in dispute as well as for recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation till the date of delivery of possession at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem. 3. The Additional District Judge held that the shop in dispute was assessed for the first time on 14-9-1965 although the shop had been let out for the first time to Kashi Ram in June, 1965. (1962) The Additional District Judge held that even though the shop in dispute was occupied earlier but having regard to the provisions contained in the explanation to section 2(2) of the Act, the first date of assessment of the building was the date of completion of construction of the building. This being 14-9-65 the provisions of the Act did not apply to the shop in dispute as the years period had not elapsed on the date of filing of the suit. Since the Act did not apply there was no restriction on the plaintiff's right to terminate the defendant's tenancy or to file suit for recovery of possession of the shop. The findings recorded by the Additional District Judge do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction and it is not possible to interfere with those findings in the present proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant-applicant urged that even on the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge the decree for the defendant's ejectment is liable to be set aside at ten years period from the date of construction of the shop elapsed on 14-9-1975 and since the defendant has deposited the entire decretal amount, the damages for use and occupation of the shop along with interest and costs of the suit, he is entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act. As already noted the date of the completion of the shop in dispute is 14-9-1965 therefore provisions of the Act became applicable to the shop on 14.9.1975 on the expiry of ten years period. As already noted the date of the completion of the shop in dispute is 14-9-1965 therefore provisions of the Act became applicable to the shop on 14.9.1975 on the expiry of ten years period. Section 40 provides that where appeal or revision arising out of a suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the Act did not apply, is pending on the date of commencement of the Act, it shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 39 which shall mutatis mutandis apply. Section 39 lays down that where the tenant within one month from the date of commencement of the Act deposits the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation together with interest there on at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and the landlord's full costs of the suit, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to sub- section (1) or in clauses (b) to (g) of sub-Section (2) of section 20. The date of commencement of the Act for purposes of section 39 would be the date on which the provisions of the Act become applicable to the building in respect of which suit, appeal or revision may be pending. If the tenant makes requisite deposit as contemplated by section 39 of the Act within one month from the date of commencement of the Act he would be relieved from the liability of ejectment from the building in question. See R.D.R. Rampath and Co. and another v. Girdhari Lal 1975 R.C.J. 569. 5. In the instant case, it is clear that the Act became applicable to the shop in question on 14.9.1975 during the pendency of the present revision in this Court. The defendant applicant is entitled to the benefit of sections 39 and 40 provided he has complied with the requirement of section 39 and made the requisite deposit within the period of one month from the date of commencement of the Act in relation to the shop in question. The defendant has asserted that during the pendency of the revision in this Court he deposited the entire decretal amount and he has further been depositing damages at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem. The defendant has asserted that during the pendency of the revision in this Court he deposited the entire decretal amount and he has further been depositing damages at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem. On 19-9-1975 the defendant made an application in this Court claiming benefit of section 40 read with section 39 of the Act and also for permission to deposit the costs to the revision. In paragraph 12 of his application the defendant gave details of the deposit made by him towards rent, damages and costs of the suit and interest. By order dated 8-10-1975 this Court permitted the defendant- applicant to make deposit subject to objection, if any, filed by the plaintiff- opposite party. No objection was, however, filed by plaintiff-opposite party. Consequently, this Court allowed the defendant-applicant's application on 18-12-1975 and confirmed the order dated 8-10-1975. These facts clearly show that the defendant-applicant has made deposits to relieve himself from the liability of ejectment. 6. The question which further remains to be considered is whether the defendant-applicant has made the requisite deposits within one month from the date the Act became applicable to the shop in question, namely, by 14th October, 1975. According to the defendant he has deposited the entire amount as contemplated by section 39 of the Act before 14-10-1975. This fact has however been disputed by the plaintiff-opposite party. This question can conveniently be decided by the lower revisional court, where the parties can place documentary evidence in support of their contention. If on appraisal of evidence the lower revisional court comes to the conclusion that the defendant has complied with the requirement of section 39 of the Act, the plaintiff's suit for defendant's ejectment would fail but in case the court below comes to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to make requisite deposit as contemplated by section 39 of the Act within the period prescribed therein, the plaintiff will be entitled to the decree for defendant's ejectment. 7. In view of the above discussion, the order and decree of the lower revisional court is set aside and the case is remanded to the 1st Addl. District Judge, Meerut to hear and decide the defendant's revision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Parties shall bear their own costs.