JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - This revision is filed by a tenant against whom the landlord, Om Prakash, has claimed a decree for eviction, arrears of rent and damages. 2. The findings are that Om Prakash was the landlord and the applicant was a tenant. The tenancy has been terminated by a notice to quit and there were arrears of rent. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was had as Om Prakash was not the sole owner but, on the own admission of the plaintiff, his brother was also a co-owner of the shop in dispute. He submits, on the basis of an authority of this court in the case of Jamir Ahmad v. Madhwanand, AIR 1979 Al. 104, that the notice of termination of tenancy was bad and hit by Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, in the case cited, the notice was held to be had where all the owners did not join in the notice though the person who gave the notice was the landlord within the meaning of the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent, and Eviction Act. 1947. The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not attacked on this ground in the Court below. It is true that the plaintiff admitted that he and his brother had jointly purchased the shop and thereafter the shop was let out to the defendant. However, it is not known what transpired between the brothers in the period intervening between the date of contract of tenancy and the institution of the suit. To allow the applicant to take this plea in the revision for the first time, is to take the plaintiff by surprise There is no hint to this in the written statement. No issue was framed in this regard. In the circumstances this the plea the revision cannot be entertained. 4. The learned Counsel also argues that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, are applicable to the shop in dispute as it was an old shop. It has come in the evidence on record that after the shop was let out to the defendant, it was demolished and reconstructed. 4. The learned Counsel also argues that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, are applicable to the shop in dispute as it was an old shop. It has come in the evidence on record that after the shop was let out to the defendant, it was demolished and reconstructed. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the shop was constructed in 1981 after demolition. In the circumstances, there is a finding of fact. 5. In the circumstances, there is no merits in the revision. 6. The revision is accordingly dismissed. There will no order as to costs, as the case is being disposed of at the admission stage. 7. However, the decree for eviction shall not be given affect to for three months from today's date, provided the appellant pays to the plaintiff or deposit in Court the rent each month. The amount, if deposited, can be withdrawn, by the plaintiff without furnishing any security. 8. A copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the applicant within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.