JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohd. Khalid, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. By means of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the validity of the judgment and order date 28.01.2014, passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, whereby the suit filed by the respondent No. 3 for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment has been decreed. The petitioner has also challenged the revisional court's order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow on 30.09.2015, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learned trial court dated 28.01.2014 has been dismissed. 3. The facts necessary for appropriate adjudication of the issues raised in this petition are that in respect of a shop situated at House No. E. 2680, Rajajipuram, Lucknow, a suit for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment was filed by the respondent No. 3 impleading the petitioner as defendant on the allegations that the petitioner was tenant of the respondent No. 3-plaintiff in respect of the shop in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 500 excluding the electricity charges and other charges and further that the shop is newly constructed one whose construction was completed in the year 1992 and thus the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. It was also asserted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 that he sent a registered notice dated 16.09.1993 through his counsel terminating and determining the tenancy in respect of the shop in question and also demanding therein damages @ Rs. 500/- per month from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the said notice. The plaint allegation further was that the notice dated 16.09.1993 was served on the petitioner on 18.09.1993, however, since the petitioner did not vacate the premises in question and did not deliver the possession thereof to the respondent No. 3 after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice as such he has rendered himself liable to be ejected from the shop in question and also that he is liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2367 from 18.10.1993 to 08.03.1994 and arrears of rent of Rs. 717 from 05.09.1993 to 17.10.1993. 4. 2367 from 18.10.1993 to 08.03.1994 and arrears of rent of Rs. 717 from 05.09.1993 to 17.10.1993. 4. The said suit was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement, wherein the plaint allegations were denied and it was stated by the petitioner that in fact the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. In the written statement, however, the receipt of the legal notice was admitted. 5. Both the parties led the evidence and on evaluation of the evidence, the trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent No. 3. 6. The learned trial court, on the basis of pleadings of both the parties framed three issues, namely, (i) whether there existed tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant ? (ii) whether the suit comes within the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ? and (iii) what relief the plaintiff is entitled to seek? 7. So far as the first issue regarding the existence of tenancy is concerned, the same was not disputed by the defendant, who is petitioner herein. In respect of issue No. 2 which was framed by the learned trial court to the effect as to whether the suit falls within the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it was asserted by the petitioner that, in fact, the shop in question was constructed way back prior to the year 1970 and further that at the time of determination of the municipal taxes in the year 1980, no separate determination for municipal taxes in respect of the shop was done. The plaintiff's case put forth before the learned trial court was that, in fact, the shop was constructed in the year 1992. It was further asserted by the plaintiff that the house in question where the shop was situated was allotted by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad to the father of the plaintiff on 07.05.1979 and possession thereof was also handed over to the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case further was that on 07.05.1993, after the shop was constructed, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad had issued notices indicating therein that the construction of the shop is illegal. 8. The plaintiff's case further was that on 07.05.1993, after the shop was constructed, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad had issued notices indicating therein that the construction of the shop is illegal. 8. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence led by the respective parties came to the conclusion that the house where the shop in question is situated was allotted to the father of the petitioner on 19.05.1979, for the first time assessment of the house tax was done on 01.10.1980 excluding the shop. It has also been concluded by the learned trial court that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1992 which is apparent from various documentary evidences filed by the plaintiff including the notice dated 07.05.1993 issued by the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad to the petitioner for alleged illegal construction of the shop and also the allotment letter dated 19.05.1979, issued by the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad to the father of the petitioner which clearly shows allotment of house alone without shop. 9. Based on evaluation of the aforesaid documentary evidences, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial court was that since the shop in question was constructed in the year 1992, as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not be applicable in the case. The learned trial court further proceeded to grant relief to the plaintiff on the basis of evaluation of evidence available on record and decreed the suit with the direction to the defendant-petitioner to vacate the shop in question within sixty days and to further pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 717 and also damages @ Rs. 500 per month till the actual vacant possession of the shop is handed over to the respondent No. 3. The revisional court has also reiterated the findings recorded by the learned trial court and refused to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned trial court giving cogent and sufficient reasons. 10. As a matter of fact, the petitioner before this Court has only raised one point/issue. The revisional court has also reiterated the findings recorded by the learned trial court and refused to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned trial court giving cogent and sufficient reasons. 10. As a matter of fact, the petitioner before this Court has only raised one point/issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that neither the learned trial court nor the revisional court either framed or considered the issue as to on which particular date the shop was constructed and in absence of determination of the said issue, the finding recorded by the learned trial court as affirmed by the learned revisional court that the shop in question does not fall within the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, cannot be sustained. 11. The aforesaid submission has been considered by the court. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court clearly reveals that while considering the issue No. 2 as to whether the suit falls within the purview of the provisions contained in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the learned trial court has intrinsically considered the question of construction of shop in question and has given its finding that the shop was constructed in the year 1992. The said finding is based on appropriate appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence available on record, specially the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff i.e. the notice dated 07.05.1993, the allotment letter and the letter of possession. The revisional court did not find any discrepancy in the findings so recorded by the learned trial court and has thus dismissed the revision petition. 12. Since the finding of facts given by both the courts below is concurrent, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner also does not find favour by this Court for the reasons disclosed hereinabove, which leaves the Court with the only option of dismissing the instant petition. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will vacate the shop in question within a period of four months from today and will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the shop to the respondent No. 3 within the said period. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 14. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will vacate the shop in question within a period of four months from today and will hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the shop to the respondent No. 3 within the said period. Accordingly, the period for vacating the shop in question, as prayed, is granted, however, the petitioner shall make payment of entire rent and damages under the judgment and order by which the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed. He will also make the payment of rent at the revised rates. Payment, if any, deposited by the petitioner before this Court, shall be reimbursed to the respondent No. 3 within fifteen days from today. 15. In case the aforesaid terms of the order passed by this Court are not complied with, the petitioner in appropriate proceedings may be held liable for committing Contempt of the Court. 16. There will be no order as to costs.