Judgment : R. K. Mahajan, J. 1. This order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 38 of 1983 as the facts involved are same. 2. THIS revision is against the order of Shri K. C. Lamba, Judge, S. C. C. (1st Additional District Judge), Nainital dated 27-8-1983 by virtue of which he held that the shop was not constructed within 10 years of the suit and as such the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. XIII of 1972) are not applicable. He further observed that the revisionist-plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands and she is not entitled for the rent though the learned trial Judge held that the relation ship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties. He also held that there is no valid proof of payment of arrears of rent from 1-10-1981 to 31-10- 1983, amounting to Rs. 7,200. There is no dispute regarding taking of the shop on tenancy by the tenant-defendant-opposite party and termination of the tenancy from 18-8-1982. The rate of rent is Rs. 300 per month. It was alleged that the shot) was completed in the year 1979 and there are arrears of rent from 1-10-81 to 30-6-82 and Rs. 301 rupees were claimed expenses of notice. 3. FEELING aggrieved, the revision has been filed by the landlady challenging the finding of the court that they are perverse and unreasonable. The order was also attacked that once the court has given a finding that there are arrears of rent etc. The decree for eviction should have been followed automatically as the rent was not paid on first hearing. She has also challenged the finding regarding the applicability or the Act No. XIII of 1972 to the newly constructed building. 4. THE tenant has also filed a revision regarding the finding of the lower court on the relationship of landlord and tenant. I have heard the counsel for the parties and I find force in the revision filed by the landlady (revisionist) on the following reasonings. 5. 4. THE tenant has also filed a revision regarding the finding of the lower court on the relationship of landlord and tenant. I have heard the counsel for the parties and I find force in the revision filed by the landlady (revisionist) on the following reasonings. 5. ONCE the trial court gave a finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant exist and the building was taken on rent and the story of payment was disbelieved by the trial court, when this finding was given, the trial court should have immediately applied Section 20 (2) (a) of Act No. XIII of 1972. Section 20 of Act No. XIII of 1972 is quoted with advantage: "20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified pounds.- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall bar a suit for the eviction of a tenant on the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time where the tenancy for a fixed term was entered into by or in pursuance of a compromise or adjustment arrived at with reference to a suit, appeal, revision or execution proceeding, which is either recorded in court or other wise reduced to writing and signed by the tenant. (2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely: (a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand: . . . . . . . . . " Section 20 (4) of Act No. XIII of 1972 is quoted with advantage: "20 (4)-In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground: . . . . . . . . . (sic) Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. " In case on the first hearing the tenant tenders rent and damages for use and occupation as mentioned in Section 20 (4) he will be released from order of eviction. There would not be available ground of eviction in that eventuality as mentioned in Section 20 (2) (a) of Act No. XIII of 1972. " 6. LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has argued that since the building has not been proved to be constructed in the year 1976 and as such old Act applies. In my view this reasoning is fallacious and is devoid of merit. The interpretation made by the trial court is in comprehensive. LEARNED trial court did not understand the exact purpose of exemption of the building from the operation of the Act. The idea behind the exemption of the new building is to encourage the building activity and holiday from eviction for ten years after the enforcement of the Act and now forty years built after 26th April, 1985. When the Bill was moved the following salient features were mentioned in the aims and objections: It is proposed to make the new law a permanent one instead of a temporary measure. When the Bill was moved the following salient features were mentioned in the aims and objections: It is proposed to make the new law a permanent one instead of a temporary measure. Instead of fixing a particular date and applying the law only to buildings constructed till the date it is proposed that the new law shall apply to all buildings after a period of ten years from the date of completion of their construction. Thus the number of buildings that will be brought under regulation shall be rising progressively as time passes. Ten years holiday from regulation is being provided to give incentive for construction of new buildings. 7. UNDER the previous Act there was a ground for eviction on the application of material alteration now it has been changed to structural alteration in the building which is likely to impair utility, value of disfigure it. There is a sea change in the ground of eviction and the Legislature had though fit in its wisdom to do so by changing so. 8. PERHAPS the lower court lost track while interpreting the exact import of law. Merely new Act come into force that does not mean that the building is old. The exemption is granted with respect to new building. The reasoning of the lower court is cut-rightly rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the building was completed in the year 1977 and application under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC has been moved to place it on record. I allow it in the interest of justice after hearing the parties. It is assessed in the year 1966 for Rs. 3,600. With respect to new building it has been assessed for the first time since 1-4-1986 at the annual value of Rs. 3,600. 9. I allow it in the interest of justice after hearing the parties. It is assessed in the year 1966 for Rs. 3,600. With respect to new building it has been assessed for the first time since 1-4-1986 at the annual value of Rs. 3,600. 9. EXPLANATION to Section 2 of Act No. XIII of 1972 is quoted for advantage: "explanation - I (a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time: Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately by the landlord and one or more tenants or by different tenants; (b) "construction" includes any new construction in place of an existing building which has been wholly or substantially demolished; (c) where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. " So it means that the building was constructed after enforcement of the Act No. XIII of 1972. It must have been assessed in the year 1986 for different reasons. But certainly it has been occupied earlier by the tenant. So it is also exempted for the operation of this Act. On both grounds the revisionist is liable to succeed and I am of the view that the lower court findings are unreasonable and suffer from infirmity and they are set aside. Since the approach of appreciating evidence and interpretation of law was wrong, the revision is allowed and the decree is passed in favour of the revisionist. On both grounds the revisionist is liable to succeed and I am of the view that the lower court findings are unreasonable and suffer from infirmity and they are set aside. Since the approach of appreciating evidence and interpretation of law was wrong, the revision is allowed and the decree is passed in favour of the revisionist. It is informed by the revisionist's counsel that the tenant has not paid the rent during the pendency of the case. 10. IN view of the finding that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant by lower court, I am of the view that the finding is not unreasonable and perverse. Since it is a finding of fact and based on evidence and admission of the defendant, the finding does not deserve to be disturbed*with this observation the Civil Revision No. 38 of 1983 is disposed of. I, therefore, pass decree of eviction in the ground of failure to pay arrears of rent and damages and other ground that building being new and pass decree of Rs. 4,656 as arrears of rent and Rs. 3,600 for use and occupation against the respondent and in favour of the tenant and allow the revision and set aside the judgment of the lower court. Revision allowed.