Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Komal Mehrotra, along with Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal without directing the parties for the exchange of the affidavits. 3. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 13/12 (Subhash Chand Verma Vs. Rajaram Verma and another), by which the revision filed by the landlord has been allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 14.3.2012 has been set aside. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that a suit was filed by the respondent, being SCC case No. 66 of 1997 (Subhash Chand Verma Vs. Rajaram Verma and Another), for payment of arrears of rent, ejectment and mesne profit. The ground was also taken that the accommodation in dispute is a new construction and, therefore, the same is outside the purview of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act'). The trial court decreed the suit on 27.1.2010. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.1.2010, the petitioners filed SCC revision. no. 12 of 2010. The revisional court allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the trial court. 6. After remand, the trial court, vide order dated 14.3.2012, dismissed the suit on the ground that in view of the agreement dated 12.12.1988, the accommodation in dispute shall be deemed to be old construction and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would be applicable. The respondent filed revision no. 13 of 2012 against the judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed by the trial court. The revision filed by the respondent has been allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 14.3.2013 vide order dated 25.10.2013. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The revision filed by the respondent has been allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 14.3.2013 vide order dated 25.10.2013. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2013, the petitioners have knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. While assailing this judgment, Sri Jain, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the revisional court has erred in treating the building outside the purview of the Act treating it to be a new construction. In his submissions, agreement dated 12.12.1988 was binding between the parties as they have taken advantage of the agreement, therefore, the provisions of the Act would be applicable. He has also contended that although the revisional court has recorded a finding that the building is newly constructed and is outside the purview of the operation of the Act, but in the entire judgment, it has no where been discussed that on which date the first assessment of the building was made or what was the date of reporting of the new construction to the local authority by the landlord. Therefore, in view of the Explanation I (a) of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act, which is touchstone for testing the fact as to whether particular building is outside the operation of the Act or not, it cannot be said that the building is newly constructed. In his further submissions, unless the ingredients contained under Explanation I (a) of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act are satisfied, it cannot be said that the building is outside the purview of the Act. He has also submitted that rulings relied upon by the revisional court on the question of binding effect of undertaking are distinguishable as they are not directly on the issue. 9. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mehrotra placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Dass Vs. He has also submitted that rulings relied upon by the revisional court on the question of binding effect of undertaking are distinguishable as they are not directly on the issue. 9. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mehrotra placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Dass Vs. Bal Kishan Dass (2012 (93) ALR 312), wherein this Court has held that a new construction after demolition shall be exempted from the operation of provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as provided under Section 2(2) of the Act, notwithstanding, the fact that the tenant, who was earlier in occupation of the existing building, voluntarily agreed to vacate it and in lieu thereof the landlord agreed to let the new construction out to such tenant after reconstruction. Learned counsel for the respondent has also invited attention of this Court towards paper no. 47-C (paper no. 47-Ga) which according to him, is the paper of first assessment after new construction and the appellate court has taken note of this paper while recording the finding that the accommodation in dispute is outside the purview of the Act. He has also invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of the trial court dated 27.1.2010 passed in SCC case no. 66 of 1997 between the same parties, wherein the date of first assessment is noted as 1.10.1989. In his submissions, even after the agreement between the parties, since the first assessment was made in the year 1989, therefore, the ingredients contained in Explanation I (a) of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act are satisfied. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents although conceded to the extent that while setting aside the judgment of the trial court, which has treated the building within the purview of the operation of the Act, this aspect of the matter, in literal sense, has not been discussed by the revisional court. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that paper no. 47-C is not on record. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that paper no. 47-C is not on record. Further, the revisional court has only mentioned the paper number and has not discussed it by observing that it is the paper of the assessment of the building by Nagar Palika and the assessment was made on the particular date and in absence of such finding, it could not be held that the accommodation in dispute is outside the purview of the Act. 12. So far as binding effect of agreement in between the parties dated 12.12.1988 with respect to applicability of the Act is concerned, although the appellate court has held that the agreement will not be binding in between the parties as it was not registered agreement as required under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, therefore, in view of section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, it cannot be read as evidence, but while recording this finding, the appellate court has not taken note of the Division Bench judgment of this Court directly on this point in the case of Gopal Dass (supra). 13. From the foregoing discussions, two things are apparent; (i) while holding the building outside the purview of the Act, the revisional court has neither discussed the first date of reporting of new construction by the landlord nor the first date of assessment of a new construction, which was essential for exempting a building from the purview of the Act apart the other ingredients contained in Explanation I (a) of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act; and (ii) the revisional court has also not taken note of the decision rendered in the case of Gopal Dass (supra), therefore, the judgment of the revisional court suffers from non-consideration of the above two points. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 13/12 (Subhash Chand Verma Vs. Rajaram Verma and another) is hereby quashed. The matter is sent back before the revisional court for recording a fresh finding on the following issues: A- Whether the ingredients of Explanation I (a) of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act are satisfied for holding the accommodation in dispute outside the purview of the Act? Rajaram Verma and another) is hereby quashed. The matter is sent back before the revisional court for recording a fresh finding on the following issues: A- Whether the ingredients of Explanation I (a) of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act are satisfied for holding the accommodation in dispute outside the purview of the Act? B- Whether the agreement dated 12.12.1988 in between the parties will be binding in between the parties in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Gopal Dass (supra). 15. The revisional court is further directed to decide the revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned counsel for the parties and in case adjournment is sought, that can be granted only after imposing cost with the direction to the party seeking adjournment to deposit the cost by the next date fixed. In case of non-deposit of the cost, the right of defaulting party for participation in the further proceeding be closed. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the revisional court, along with the certified copy of the order of this Court, within a period of three weeks from today. _________________