JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - Smt. Ram Bitoli, respondent No. 3, filed Small Cause Court suit No. 11 of 1978 against the petitioner Satya Narain for ejectment from a shop. The respondent's case was that the aforesaid shop had been constructed in 1969 and thereafter it had been let out to the petitioner in September, 1969. Respondent No. 3 alleged that as she did not intend to retain the petitioner Satya Narain any longer, she served a notice for termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but since possession was not handed over to her despite the termination of tenancy, she was compelled to bring the suit for the reliefs of ejectment, recovery of rent and damages for use and occupation. 2. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner on the allegation that the building was constructed in 1978, and that in the absence of any of the grounds stated in Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Respondent No. 3 was not entitled to a decree. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases on the controversy as to when was the shop in dispute constructed. 4. The learned Judge Small Cause Court found that the shop in dispute had been constructed in 1969. Having found that the shop was constructed in 1969, the view taken was that the building was exempt from the operation of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The defendant went up in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revision was dismissed and the finding of the Small Cause Court Judge that the shop was constructed in 1969 was affirmed. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Court. 6. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner's counsel raised the question as to the interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, and contended that the said section was applicable only to buildings brought into being de novo after the Act came into force, the building was not covered by sub-section (2) of Section 2, and that respondent No. 3 could get a decree only one of the grounds stated in sub-section (2) of Section 20 having been established. Hon A.N. Varma, J. found a conflict between the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Rattan Lal Singhal v. Smt. Murti Devi, 1979 ALR 595 and Ram Swarup Rai v. Smt. Leelawati. Since in his opinion the only question involved in the writ petition was about the interpretation of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, he referred the writ petition for decision by a larger Bench. Consequent upon the reference being made by Hon. A.N. Varma, J. the case came up for hearing before a Bench of Hon. N.D. Ojha and Hon. K.M. Dayal, JJ. Having reached at the conclusion that the propriety demanded that the matter should receive the attention of a Full Bench, the Bench directed the papers to be laid before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a full Bench. Thereupon, this full Bench was constituted which heard this petition along with the connected writ petition No. 6909 of 1979. In the latter case, the question referred was ; "Whether the provision of Section 2(2) are applicable only to building which are brought into existence after the coming into force of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or they are applicable also to buildings constructed prior thereto ? 7. In this writ petition also, as stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed only one point before us, which was about sub-section (2) of Section 2 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. We have heard both the cases together, and for the reasons given in writ petition No. 6909 of 1979, Gopal Krishan v. Vth Addl. Judge Kanpur and others, we find that sub-section (2) of Section 2 is not only applicable to buildings which are brought into existence after the coming into force of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 but the said provision is also applicable to buildings constructed prior thereto. 8. Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, frankly admitted that this was the only question which arose for decision in this writ petition. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. the petitioner is granted three month's time to vacate the premises. 10. 8. Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, frankly admitted that this was the only question which arose for decision in this writ petition. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. the petitioner is granted three month's time to vacate the premises. 10. Since we are of opinion that the points involved in this writ petition raise substantial question of law of general importance needing to be decided by the Supreme Court, we grant the certificate of fitness under Article 133 of the constitution.