JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This revision is directed against on order passed by the Court below dismissing a suit filed by the appellant for ejectment of the defendants-opposite parties. 2. It is not necessary to set out the pleadings of the parties in detail, as the case has to be remanded to the Court below for a fresh decision in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Krishna v. Additional Distt. and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and others, 1981 Alld. Rent Cases 336 (FB). 3. The plaintiff brought the present suit on the assertion that as the building under tenancy had been constructed in the year 1967, the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable. The Court, below relying on decision of the Supreme Court in Ratanlal Singh v. Shrimati Murti Devi, 1979 ALR 595, dismissed the plaintiffs-appellant's suit on the ground that the ten years holiday permitted under Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was available only to the new buildings which are bought into exercise after the coming into force of the said Act. This view is contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Krishan (supra). The Full Bench had occasion to resolve an apparent controversy which seemed to have arisen in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal Singh .v Shrimati Murti Devi (supra) and another subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Swarup Rai v. Shrimati Leelawati, 1980 ALR 395. The Full Bench held that the correct view would be that Section 2(2) of the aforesaid Act is applicable alike to the buildings which were already in existence on the date of coming into force of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as the buildings constructed subsequently thereto. 4. The very basis upon which the decision of the Court below is founded was, therefore, wrong and contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Krishan v. Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others (supra). 5. The case has, therefore, to go back for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. 6. Learned counsel for the tenant, however, tried to support the decision of the Court below on findings which were recorded against the tenant. 5. The case has, therefore, to go back for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. 6. Learned counsel for the tenant, however, tried to support the decision of the Court below on findings which were recorded against the tenant. He contended that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served upon the plaintiff was ineffectual in law, not having been served on the real tenant, who according to the opposite parties, is Surender Nath Sharma. It was also contended that the finding of the Court below on issue No. 1 is also wrong and that on true and proper interpretation of the lease deed, it will be found that it was Shri Surender Nath Sharma, who was the lease. As I am remanding the case to the Court below, I am exercising no opinion on this submission. The Court below will consider all the issues afresh. 7. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below are set aside. The Court below will dispose of the case afresh according to law having regard to the observation made in his judgement. 8. The parties will bear their own costs of this revision.