ORDER V.K. Khanna, J. - This revision has been filed by the defendants under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment dated 13.7.1987 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge acting as Judge, Small Cause Court. 2. Briefly facts for the purposes of deciding the present revision are that admittedly the defendants are tenants of the premises in dispute which is a shop. The plaintiff terminated the tenancy under Section 106 of the T.P. Act and also served a notice of demand for the arrears of rent. As the accommodation was neither vacated nor the arrears of rent paid, the suit giving rise to this revision was filed. 3. The point involved in this revision is as to whether the premises in dispute are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (UP Act. No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiffs, case was that the building was assessed for the first time in the Municipal Board, Jhansi on 1.4.1979 and thus the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable to the case. 4. The defendant's case on the other hand was that the building was an old one to which the provisions of the Act applied. 5. The Judge Small Cause Court after appreciating the evidence held that there was neither first assessment of the building nor there was any material which showed the date on which the completion of the building had been reported. In these circumstances the Court below held that the shop was first occupied on 1.7.1979 which may be deemed to be the date of the construction of the building under the Act. On those findings it was held that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the premises in dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has challenged the aforesaid finding recorded by the Court below on the basis that there was no pleading by the plaintiff to the effect that the building was first occupied on 1.4.1979 and in the absence of the pleading neither any evidence could be led nor any finding could be recorded by the Court below. 7. It may be mentioned that at the admission stage the opposite party took notice and the parties exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavit. 7. It may be mentioned that at the admission stage the opposite party took notice and the parties exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavit. The record of the case was also summoned from the Court below. 8. I have carefully perused the record of the case. In para 3 of the plaint it has been clearly averred that prior to taking of the shop on rent by the defendant it was let out to one Shri Radha Raman. This fact has not been specifically denied in the written statement by the defendants. The husband of the plaintiff had been examined in the suit, who has stated that the building was given for the first time to Radha Raman on 1.7.1979. Shri Raman has also been examined who has stated that he was a tenant of the shop and had occupied it on 1.7.1979. Dr. R.K. Agarwal, husband of the plaintiff has specifically stated that Radha Raman was the first tenant in the shop in dispute. The finding recorded by the Court below, in my opinion, therefore, is correct that the shop was first occupied on 1.7.1979 and thus the date of construction of the shop will be deemed to be the aforesaid date. 9. No other point has been pressed before me. 10. For the reasons stated above, the present revision is dismissed with costs. 11. Before parting it may be stated that the learned counsel for the applicants has prayed that the applicants are carrying on a business in the shop and a reasonable time be granted for vacating the same. I have heard the opposite party on this question also. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case the applicants are granted six months' time for vacating the shop in dispute subject to the condition that they file their affidavits before the Judge, Small Cause Court within a period of three weeks containing an undertaking that they shall hand over peaceful possession of the shop in dispute on or before six months from today and will also pay the entire rent and damages for remaining in occupation of the shop in pursuance of the order of this Court at the rate of rent awarded by the Judge, Small Cause Court within the same period. In case of default in either not filing the undertaking or not depositing the rent with the Judge, Small Cause Court, the plaintiff decree-holder will be entitled to execute his decree forthwith.