JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 2221986 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Revision No. 12 of 1985 (annexure 4) and also for quashing the order dated 301184 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Faizabad in suit No. 16 of 1984 (Annexure 3). 2. The plaintiff respondent had filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was the tenant of the shop in dispute on Rs. 80/ per month. The said shop was constructed in December, 1977 and therefore the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called, the Act) were not applicable. The tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by means of the notice dated 711984 which was served on the tenant on 1411984. 3. The tenant contested the suit, inter alia on the ground that the shop in question was an old one and therefore the provisions of the Act were applicable and since none of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the said Act was attracted the landlord had no right to file suit for ejectment. 4. The trial court held that the shop in question was constructed in 1977 and, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. The tenant filed a revision before the District Judge but the revision was dismissed and the findings of the trial court were confirmed. The tenant has filed this writ petition. 5. The only point argued on behalf of the parties is as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable in this case or not. According to the landlord the shop in question was constructed in 1977; whereas the tenantpetitioner alleged that the shop was an old one. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that earlier there was a passage covered by a roof and the landlord has merely fixed a door and raised walls and has converted the same into the shop and as such the said alteration would not be enough to treat the shop in question as new construction. The facts which have been accepted by the courts below are that only the roof of the shop in question is old and all other constructions including walls were new from the foundation. The facts which have been accepted by the courts below are that only the roof of the shop in question is old and all other constructions including walls were new from the foundation. The level of the floor was also altered. The landlord has also filed permission from the Municipal Board for construction of the shop. The site plan which was sanctioned by the Municipal Board also indicated that the said sanction was granted in October, 1977. The landlord has also examined the mason who has constructed the shop in question. The court below has accepted these facts and this court sitting under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not enter into the controversy about the facts. 6. From the facts which have been establised it is clear that except the roof none of the structures of the shop in question is old. Earlier there existed a passage which had been converted tnto a shop and was let out to the tenantpetitioner for the first time. The shop has thus come in existence in 1977 and earlier there was no shop there but was a passage only. The mere fact that the roof was not demolished and the same roof continued, would not be enough to treat the entire construction as old. 7. In a case reported in 1980 ALJ 229 Jagdish Prasad v. District Judge, Ghaziabad and others there existed an old Baithka. The said Baithka was converted into four shops. It was argued that the said shops would not be called a new construction. Repelling the said argument the court held that since the Baithka had been converted into shops by making changes, the shops did not remain part of the old construction. It has been observed in that case that purpose of the landlord before and after the alterations be relevant. In the instant case before us there was only a passage. The landlord by making alteration had raised a new construction converting the same into the shop. The purpose of the said change was to use the accommodation as shop and not as a passage. Further, if a part of the building which has its independent entity and has been let out, then the said separate and distinct entity would be called a building. Here the shop in question has a distinct entity and it has been let out as such. Further, if a part of the building which has its independent entity and has been let out, then the said separate and distinct entity would be called a building. Here the shop in question has a distinct entity and it has been let out as such. 8. In view of the above discussion and the facts established, the shop in question would be treated to be a new construction and the provisions of the Act would have no application. The impugned orders are, therefore, not at all liable to be quashed. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.