JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is tenant’s writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 3, Salamatulla filed S.C.C. Suit No. 47 of 1983 against tenant petitioner and another person Chhutan Ali. In the plaint of the suit it was stated that the shop in dispute was newly constructed and it was let out to the petitioner defendant No.1 w.e.f. 1.11.1973. Suit was filed on 8.9.1983 and it was alleged by the landlord that ten years’ period had not expired since completion of the shop in dispute when suit was filed, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable. By virtue of Section 2(2) of the Act, the Act does not apply to building for a period of ten years in case it is constructed before April, 1985. 3. The tenant denied the said allegation and asserted that shop in dispute was constructed much before 1973. Landlord alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 75/- per month. Tenant petitioner asserted that prior to November, 1973, rent was Rs. 50/- per month. However, in November, 1973, under agreement between the parties, the roof of the shop was replaced and some other construction, repair etc. were also made by the landlord and thereafter rent was agreed to be enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month. 4. It is not disputed that the old shop was allotted to tenant petitioner in 1965. It was also alleged that a corner of the shop had been sub-let by the tenant petitioner to defendant No. 2, Chhutan Ali (Chhutan Ali is not party in this writ petition). 5. Trial Court/J.S.C.C./Ist Additional Munsif, Amroha (which was in District Moradabad at that time) held that the Act was not applicable upon the building in dispute. Accordingly, suit for eviction was decreed. Decree for the arrears of rent, pendente lite and future damages was also passed. However, trial Court held that there was no subletting. The said judgment and decree was passed on 29.7.1986. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 7 of 1986, which was dismissed by IIIrd A.D.J., Moradabad on 19.5.1987, hence this writ petition. 6. Decree for the arrears of rent, pendente lite and future damages was also passed. However, trial Court held that there was no subletting. The said judgment and decree was passed on 29.7.1986. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No. 7 of 1986, which was dismissed by IIIrd A.D.J., Moradabad on 19.5.1987, hence this writ petition. 6. Defendant petitioner filed written statement asserting therein that shop in dispute was allotted to him in 1965, that in the year 1972, landlord wanted to forcibly evict him from the shop in dispute, hence he filed a suit for prohibitory injunction against landlord being O.S. No. 277 of 1972, that in the said suit, a compromise was entered into between the parties on 2.8.1973 and suit was decreed on the basis of the said compromise. Copy of the compromise is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. According to the said compromise, the landlord was to construct/reconstruct/repair the shop by placing a roof of lintel. The condition No. 2 was that since date of the said agreement, the shop was being let out for ten years and during this period of ten years landlord would not get the shop in dispute vacated. It was also agreed that as against the old rent of Rs. 50/- per month, rent of Rs. 75/- per month would be paid by the tenant after reconstruction/replacement of the roof. It was also mentioned under Condition No. 1 that during the period of reconstruction, possession of the shop would remain with the tenant. 7. The trial Court held that the entire shop was newly constructed in October, 1973 after getting the map passed from the local authority, hence it was altogether new construction and not merely replacement of old roof by lintel roof. 8. The compromise was not denied by the landlord. The trial Court further held on the basis of the compromise that the shop was beyond repairs when compromise was entered into. 9. 8. The compromise was not denied by the landlord. The trial Court further held on the basis of the compromise that the shop was beyond repairs when compromise was entered into. 9. The trial Court has also observed that initially Salamatulla, respondent No. 3 in this writ petition and his brother Zamanatullah were landlords and the tenant had filed injunction suit against both of them and initially on 2.10.1972 (or 9.10.1972), agreement was entered into in between tenant and Jamanatullah according to which shop in dispute was beyond repairs and landlord undertook to reconstruct the same, however through subsequent agreement of 2.8.1973, it was agreed that Jamanatulla would not be having any concern with the shop in dispute and Salamatulla respondent No. 3 would be the sole landlord. 10. I do not agree with the view of the Courts below that as the shop was newly constructed in 1973, hence period of ten years for the purposes of application of the Act would be counted from the date on which new construction was completed. Under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, a dilapidated tenanted accommodation may be released for demolition and reconstruction. Thereafter, under Section 24(2) of the Act, it is provided that newly constructed accommodation should be let out to the tenant and the Act should continue to apply to the new building. Under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act, a dilapidated tenanted accommodation may be released for demolition and reconstruction. Thereafter, under Section 24(2) of the Act, it is provided that newly constructed accommodation should be let out to the tenant and the Act should continue to apply to the new building. Section 24(2) of the Act is quoted below : “(2) Where the landlord after obtaining a release order under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 demolishes a building and constructs a new building or buildings on its site, then the District Magistrate may, on an application being made in that behalf by the original tenant within such time as may be prescribed, allot to him the new building or such one of them as the District Magistrate after considering his requirements thinks fit, and thereupon that tenant shall be liable to pay as rent for such building an amount equivalent to one per cent per month of the cost of construction thereof (including the cost of demolition of the old building but not including the value of the land) and the building shall, subject to the tenant’s liability to pay rent as aforesaid, be subject to the provisions of this Act, and where the tenant makes no such application or refuses or fails to take that building on lease within the time allowed by the District Magistrate, or subsequently ceases to occupy it or otherwise vacates it, that building shall also be exempt from the operation of this Act for the period or the remaining period, as the case may be, specified in sub-section (2) of Section 2.” 11. On the same principle, it is to be held that in case under agreement, tenant voluntarily vacates the tenanted accommodation for demolition and new construction and after demolition and new construction, newly constructed premises is let out to the tenant, the Act would continue to apply to the building in dispute. 12. In the instant case, exactly the same thing has happened. In my opinion, in spite of altogether new construction, the Act continued to apply to the shop in dispute. 13. The other point to be considered is the effect of condition of vacation of the shop in ten years. Under the agreement dated 2.8.1973, it was provided that the shop was being let out for ten years. The agreement was entered into in a suit. 13. The other point to be considered is the effect of condition of vacation of the shop in ten years. Under the agreement dated 2.8.1973, it was provided that the shop was being let out for ten years. The agreement was entered into in a suit. Under Clause two of the agreement dated 2.8.1973, it was mentioned that from the date of the said agreement, the shop was let out for a period of ten years. Suit was filed for eviction giving rise to the instant writ petition on 8.9.1983, i.e. after more than ten years from the date of the agreement (dated 2.8.1973). Such situation is covered by proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, which is quoted below : “Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.—(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 otherwise reduced to writing and signed by the tenant.” 14. In my opinion, the aforesaid proviso is squarely applicable and tenant cannot plead that as no ground for eviction as provided under Section 20(2) has been made out, hence he cannot be evicted. However, learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that the suit was not based upon the said compromise and in fact in the plaint absolutely no mention of the compromise was made. On the other hand in Para-6 of the plaint, it was stated that the tenant had illegally made some constructions without the consent of the landlord and had placed lintel on the shop. 15. Obviously, the allegations that constructions were made by the tenant pleaded in Para-6 of the plaint were wrong. On the other hand in Para-6 of the plaint, it was stated that the tenant had illegally made some constructions without the consent of the landlord and had placed lintel on the shop. 15. Obviously, the allegations that constructions were made by the tenant pleaded in Para-6 of the plaint were wrong. Under the agreement arrived at in between the landlord and the tenant in the tenant’s injunction suit, constructions were to be made by the landlord and landlord admitted to have reconstructed the shop. 16. However, as tenant himself filed the agreement of 2.8.1973 and placed reliance thereupon to contend that reconstruction was made by the landlord under the agreement, hence he cannot escape from the effect and operation of that clause of the agreement, which stated that the shop in dispute was being let out for ten years. 17. Accordingly, in my opinion, suit was liable to be decreed under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. 18. Accordingly, decree for eviction passed by both the Courts below is maintained even though on different grounds. 19. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 20. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that : (1) Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. (2) For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, rent at the agreed rate for this period of six months amounting to Rs. 450/- is deposited. (Normally while granting time to the tenant to vacate I impose condition of payment of reasonable amount, which is at least equivalent to 50% of current market rent, however in the instant case I am not issuing that direction for the reason that in the plaint plaintiff wrongly asserted that lintel etc. was placed by the tenant without its consent). This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. (3) Within one month from today tenants shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date after adjusting any amount already deposited, before J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to landlord respondent. 21. was placed by the tenant without its consent). This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the J.S.C.C. and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. (3) Within one month from today tenants shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date after adjusting any amount already deposited, before J.S.C.C. for immediate payment to landlord respondent. 21. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual eviction. 22. Similarly if after complying with the above conditions shop in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then since after six months till actual eviction tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay rent/damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 1500/- per month. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application. ————