JUDGMENT N. N. Mithal, J. 1. Defendants' appeal raises just a short question though of considerable importance regarding applicability of the provision of The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976 to money lent by any one who decides not to carry on such business after the enforcement of the Act. 2. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of money due on a loak advanced on 20-8-1975 re-payable with 12% interest. The plaintiff also claimed that he was not a money lender either from before the Act or thereafter as he was mainly an agriculturist. The defendants denied these allegations and contended that as a money lender he was not competent to sue in the absence of requisite licence under the Act, besides this he had failed to submit account also to the concerned authorities. Some other pleas were also raised but these are no longer relevent for the appeal nor any was raised. 3. Following ten issues were struck by the trial court:- 1. Whether defendant borrowed Rs. 20000.00 on 12-6-1975 on interest at the rate of Re. 1/- per cent per month and executed sarkhat in question in plaintiff's favour ? 2. Whether plaintiff is a money lender ? If so, its effect ? 3. Whether defendants are small farmers ? If so, are they entitled to the benefit of Sec. 10 of U. P. Act No. 4 of 1977 as alleged in para II of W. S. 4. Whether disputed Sarkhat was obtained for the purpose as alleged in paras 13 and 14 of W. S., its effect ? 5.To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? 6. Whether plaintiff is a money lender as contemplated by law ? If so whether the suit is not maintainable for want of money lending licence ? 7. Whether defendant is a small farmer ? Its effect ? 8. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as alleged by the defendants ? 9. Whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have obtained a money lending licence as provided by section 18 (c) of U. P. Act 1 of 1979 ? Its effect ? 10. Whether disputed debt was borrowed for legal necessity ? If not its effect ? 4. Issues Nos. 9. Whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have obtained a money lending licence as provided by section 18 (c) of U. P. Act 1 of 1979 ? Its effect ? 10. Whether disputed debt was borrowed for legal necessity ? If not its effect ? 4. Issues Nos. 2, 6 and 9 were discussed together holding that no licence was needed as plaintiff was not money lender and his claim was not barred under any of its provisions and the court decreed the suit. Sri R. P. Goel, for the appellants, directed the thrust of his submissions on the applicability of U. P. Regulations of Money Lending Act, 1976 as regards the plaintiff and the transaction in question. Before referring to the evidence it will be far better to have a general idea about the various provisions of the Act itself. 5. This Act was enacted in the interest of the general public to provide for the regulation of money lending transactions and for registration of money lenders and matters connected therewith. The Act received the President's assent on 17th of July, 1976 and came into force with effect from 1st Sept. 1976. 'Money lender' as defined in section 3 (6) of the Act means a person who carries on the business of money-lending. Business of money-lending, according to section 3 (2) means the business of advancing loans, whether or not in connection with or in addition to any other business. 'Loan' in section 3 (5) is defined as follows : "Loan means an advance at interest whether of money or in kind and including any transaction which is in substance a loan, but does not include sale of any goods by a dealer in such goods whether on credit or on hire purchase." 6. 'Loan' in section 3 (5) is defined as follows : "Loan means an advance at interest whether of money or in kind and including any transaction which is in substance a loan, but does not include sale of any goods by a dealer in such goods whether on credit or on hire purchase." 6. Section 7 occurring in Chapter III which relates to registration of money lenders reads as follows : "Section 7 (1) Any person carrying on the business of money lending on the date of commencement of this Act wishing to carry on such business after such commencement (or any person wishing to commence such business after the said date) in any part of Uttar Pradesh may apply to the Registrar within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he has his principal place of such business, and where his principal place of business is situated outside Uttar Pradesh, to any Registrar within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he carries on or proposes to carry on his business, for registration as a money lender under this Act. Provided that any person carrying on the said business from before the commencement of this Act may apply for registration under this Act within three months from the date of commencement of U. P. Regulation of Money Lending (Amendment) Act, 1979." Section 10 prohibits any person from carrying on money lending business without a valid certificate of registration. Section 26 deals with furnishing of particulars of debts due to the money lender and deposit made with him and such other particulars as may be prescribed. Since this section has mainly been the centre of entire discussion its relevant portion may be extracted here :- "Sub- clause (1)-Every- money-lender carrying on the business of money lending from before the commencement of this Act shall submit to the Registrar, a statement in the prescribed form within a period of three months from the date of such commencement : Provided : .................. (2) ........................ (3) ........................ (2) ........................ (3) ........................ (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, decree or order or any other law for the time being in force, no money lender shall be entitled to claim any amount from debtor in respect of any loan advanced before the commencement of this Act, unless the name of such debtor and the amount due from him has been specified in the statement referred to in Sub-section (1)" (emphasis supplied). 7. The first question raised is that the plaintiff had been carrying on money lending business from before the commencement of the Act. Admittedly, neither a licence under Sec. 7 of the Act is held by the plaintiff nor any statement of money lending account was admittedly submitted by him to the authority concerned within the prescribed period. The plaintiff's disputes being a money lender or ever to have carried on or to have intended to carry on money lending business before or after the commencement of the Act. Proof of some loan transactions brought on the record are alleged to be isolated, sporadic and casual in nature which did not constitute regular money lending business by him. 8. Before coming to the question of plaintiff's statutory obligation to obtain a certificate of registration and/or statement of account and particulars of loan transaction prior in time to the coming into force of the 1976 Act it is necessary first to determine if the plaintiff was carrying on money lending business before the Act. It is plaintiff's own case that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was advanced by him to the defendants which was repayable with interest. The transaction was undoubtedly a loan as defined in Sec. 3 (5) of the Act. The only question is whether this was indeed a solitary transaction or the plaintiff was a money lender and was carrying on the business of money lending prior to the Act. When definition of 'money lender' and the business of money lending are examined together it would mean a person who carries on the business of advancing loan. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff was a person who was 'carrying on' the business of money lending. The term 'carry on' trade or business in Blacks Law Dictionary (5th edition page 194) is defined as :- "to continue a particular avocation or business as a continuous operation or permanent occupation. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff was a person who was 'carrying on' the business of money lending. The term 'carry on' trade or business in Blacks Law Dictionary (5th edition page 194) is defined as :- "to continue a particular avocation or business as a continuous operation or permanent occupation. The repetition of the act may be sufficient. The term, depending on the context, has multiple meanings :". 9. The expression 'carrying on' normally connotes repetition of acts in contradistinction to a solitary act of a particular nature. If there be repetition of acts of a similar nature and a certain amount of regularity is reflected it constitutes business. Although a single transaction of money lending may not amount to carrying on the money lending business but a series of such transactions may. It is not uncommon to find phases of inactivity even in a running business but such intervals cannot lead to a conclusion to the contrary. However, facts of each case must determine whether in given circumstances or on proved facts a person can be said to carry on business of money lending or not. The nature of business and the regularity of transactions and various other circumstances have all to be looked into. Thus the evidence on record must be examined to see whether there was earlier transaction of a similar nature so as to be termed 'carrying on of money lending business' by the plaintiff or to accept his explanation that there were merely isolated cases to help in a friendly or brotherly manner. 10. The defendants have filed Ext A-4 which is copy of the plaint in Suit No. 15 of 1974 by plaintiff against one Surendra Nath Rai on two loan advanced by him on 20-6-72 and 10-2-73. Ext. A-5 is the copy of another plaint in Suit No. 150 of 1964 for recovery of a loan advanced by plaintiff on 1st Sept. 1963. Ext. A-6 is yet another plaint in Suit No. 71 of 1976 by him to recover loan advanced on 15th July 1970. Ext. A-7 is plaint of Suit No. 37 of 1980 by plaintiff against Anwar Khan and others based on loan transaction of March, 1971, acknowledged in 1974 and then in March, 1977. This loan gave rise to a fresh loan transaction when a new pronote was executed. Ext. A-7 is plaint of Suit No. 37 of 1980 by plaintiff against Anwar Khan and others based on loan transaction of March, 1971, acknowledged in 1974 and then in March, 1977. This loan gave rise to a fresh loan transaction when a new pronote was executed. This is all the evidence called in aid of appellant's contention was that plaintiff was carrying on the business of money lending and that even advanced the loan subsequent to the Act. The respondent's submission is that he did not carry on any regular business of money 'ending but some loans were advanced as a gesture of help and these did not amount to carrying the business by plaintiff. I find it difficult to accept the respondents' submission. None of the plaints indicate that the defendants therein were relations of near ones of the plaintiff. In his statement also he has not explained the circumstances under which these loans were advanced. None of the defendants of these cases have been examined. A certain amount of regularity is discernable from the manner loans were being advanced and suits for recovery that were filed by plaintiff. It is common knowledge that just a few of the many borrowers may fail to repay the loan necessitating the filing of suit by money lender only in such cases. All the loans advanced by the lender do not lend up in courts. Those claims which come up before the court also may not all come to the knowledge of the defendant and he would certainly be handicapped to that extent. Such a fact is always within the special knowledge of the lender and he alone could have been the best person to disclose them. Therefore, looking to their comparative position of handicap and advantage the respondents' argument that only a few transactions have been pointed out cannot carry much weight. Even these few transactions are enough to show that the plaintiff was a money lender. In Ram Jiwan v. Sri Niwas, 1979 ALR 286 a learned single Judge of this court was dealing with a case under U. P. Act No. 29 of 1976 and merely on the basis of three transactions of money lending by the plaintiff came to the conclusion that he was a money lender within the meaning of the Act. In Ram Jiwan v. Sri Niwas, 1979 ALR 286 a learned single Judge of this court was dealing with a case under U. P. Act No. 29 of 1976 and merely on the basis of three transactions of money lending by the plaintiff came to the conclusion that he was a money lender within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the instances of advancement of loans that have been brought on record, though spread over a number of years, certainly got to prove a continuous or repetitive nature of these transactions and this continuity itself is enough to lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff was infact carrying on the business of money lending. The question whether the plaintiff carried on any money lending business even after enforcement of the Act must be left out of consideration for the present and if necessary will be dealt with later in this judgment. At this very stage it would be better to dispose of an application moved by the appellants for acceptance of certain certified copies of judgment as additional evidence. The application is opposed by the respondent. On hearing the parties I am not satisfied that any good or proper ground exists for admitting this additional evidence. Apart from this, it is also doubtful whether judgments in respect of loan transactions between the plaintiff and some others are at all relevant and are not covered by any of the provisions of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. Certified copies of the plaint, however, stand on different footing as these contain plaintiffs own admission. In view of this I am not disposed to accept the additional evidence and the applications must be rejected. 11. This now leads us to the core controversy raised by the parties. To put it simply, the appellant's submission is that in all cases where a money lender was carrying on the business of money lending before coming into force of this Act a statutory duty is cast on him by Section 26 (1) thereof to submit a statement in Form No. 10 as required by Rule 19 framed under this Act. Failure to do so must invariably result in negativing of the claims of the money lender under Sec. 26 (4) of the Act. The argument is countered by the respondents. Failure to do so must invariably result in negativing of the claims of the money lender under Sec. 26 (4) of the Act. The argument is countered by the respondents. On the basis that to attract the provisions of Sec. 26 (1) two conditions have to exist viz. the person should be a money lender and that he must be carrying on the business of money lending. 'Money lender' itself has been defined in Sec. 3 (6) as one who carries on the business of money lending. Sri R. N. Singh submitted that the definition of ' money lender ' may first be read in place of ' money lender ' while reading Sec. 26 (1) to determine its purpose and meaning. So reading the provision would be : "Every person who carries on the business of money lending from before the commencement of this Act ......... " What he proposes to emphasise is that dual use of carrying on business shows the legislative intent that only those persons who used to carry on money lending business before the Act and are still carrying on such business alone will attract the limitation and no other case. Though at first sight the argument appears attractive but on a closer scrutiny it will be found to have no merit. 12. "Money Lender" is one who carries on the business of money lending. Any one falling within the definition must be designated as such. This, therefore, define the class of persons and if any one belonging to this class was carrying on the business of money lending prior to the enforcement of the Act he will come within the ambit of Section 26 (1). The expression ' carrying on the business of money lending ' also cannot be interpreted to mean that the business should be in existence or in continuation after the commencement of this Act. The words ' from before the commencement of the Act ' following immediately after the earlier expression completely rules out such a meaning. Where the words ' from before ' are used it necessarily follows that the person was carrying on the business at a point of time prior to the commencement of the Act. This can be explained by giving one example. Where the words ' from before ' are used it necessarily follows that the person was carrying on the business at a point of time prior to the commencement of the Act. This can be explained by giving one example. Take the case of a money lender who gave a loan on the date of enforcement of the Act or even a day prior to it and decides to close it down in view of the rigors of this Act. Can it be said that the person was not carrying on the business of money lending before this Act commenced ? The use of a present continuous tense in the expression " carrying on the business " only refers to the business that he carried on but does not mean that it continued even thereafter. In such an event certain consequences as enumerated in Clause (4) follow according to which his claim as money lender be it in the form of a contract, decree or order and even under any other law, shall be barred and shall not be recoverable unless the loan finds mention in the statement required to be submitted in Form 10. The omission to do so shall prove fatal. 13. This view is further fortified by the objects of this legislation which in no uncertain term mentions that it was designed to regulate the money lending transactions. The use of the word ' transactions ' is significant. It shows that the law was not merely to regulate money lenders but also the money lending transactions. If persons who had been carrying on money lending business from before the commencement of the Act were to be excluded from its operation the result is bound to be drastic with devastating consequences. In that event all that a money lender need to do is to put an end to his business. THIS would, if the arguments were to be accepted, keep alive all the past loan transactions as, according to respondents submission, the bar will apply only to those who propose to continue the business. Even after putting an end to the old business the very same person may again start money lending business after obtaining a certificate of registration under Sec. 7 after realising the money due on all the old transactions. Even after putting an end to the old business the very same person may again start money lending business after obtaining a certificate of registration under Sec. 7 after realising the money due on all the old transactions. To take such a view, therefore, would be contrary to the plain reading of Sec. 26 as also against very object of the legislation. I, therefore, find myself unable to subscribe to this line of argument. 14. The appellant has also referred to a decision of this Court in Ram Gopal v. Kailash Narain, 1980 ALR 515 where also a similar question came up for consideration. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aimta v Banerji, as he then was has held as under : "Sub-section (4) has an overriding effect over ail other provisions of law, contract, decree or order. The plain interpretation of the provision of sub-section (4) is that a money-lender shall not be entitled to recover any amount from a debtor, advanced as a loan, prior to the enforcement of the Act, unless he has furnished a statement in the prescribed form with the Registrar under Section 26 (1) of the Act. Where this has not been done, the money lender shall not be able to claim any such amount. This provision is, therefore, in respect of loan taken before the commencement of the Act. The only thing that has to be seen is whether the money lender has included the debt in the form filed with the Registrar. If he has not, he will not be able to recover the amount. In other words, it is sine qua non for every money-lender, who claims any amount from a debtor in respect of loan advanced prior to 20th July, 1976 (In fact this date should be 1st Sept. 76) viz. the date on which the Act was enforced to furnish a statement in the prescribed form with the Registrar, where he has not done so, he is not entitled to recover the amount ". In view of this decision it is amply clear that even in respect of the loan advanced prior to the commencement of the Act a money lender is legally obliged to furnish a statement to the Registrar in that respect if he wants to recover that amount from the debtor failing which bar of Section 26 (4) will come into play in favour of the debtor. 15. 15. Thus having considered the matter in all the aspects, I find that the appellants contention has merit and should be accepted. The plaintiff being a money lender his claim is barred under Sec. 26 (4) of U. P. Act 29 of 1976 as the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 26 (1) of the Act by submitting a statement in Form 10. 16. In the result the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. However, the circumstances of the case require that parties should be left to fend for their respective costs in the two courts. Appeal allowed.