JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for quashing of judgment and order dated 3.1.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judge Small Cause Court Act in JSCC No. 1 of 2010 (Rajendra Prasad v. Kalu Ram @ Kalu) and the judgment and order dated 30.1.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-I in SCC Revision No. 1 of 2015 (Kalu Ram @ Kalu v. Rajendra Prasad). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Sharma. 3. He has submitted that the Judge Small Causes Court in judgment and order dated 3.1.2015 has wrongly observed that no evidence was filed by the tenant for proving that he was in tenancy since the past 35 years and being an old tenant, he was entitled for protection under the Rent Control and Eviction Act. 4. According to him, an application for additional evidence was moved with regard to proving with documentary evidence that the tenancy that was in the name of his father earlier had devolved upon him through inheritance. The application moved under Order 41, Rule 27 was rejected for the reason that the provisions of CPC would not apply to proceedings under the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, the petitioner thereafter approached this Court under Article 227 by filing Application No. 155 of 2016 Kalu Ram @ Kalu v. Rajendra Prasad and this Court after considering all the law on the subject came to a conclusion that under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, additional evidence can be taken on record subject to limitation as given in the authoritative decisions rendered on the issue, for example, Babu Ram v. Additional District Judge, Dehradun, 1983 ARC 15, which was followed in Radha Govind (Dead) through Lrs and others v. Patel Bidi Company and others, 2008 (2) ARC 161. The applicant having sought to bring on record certain rent receipts issued earlier i.e. before 1996 through the application which was rejected by the Revisional Court. This Court set aside the order of the Revisional Court and directed the consideration of the application afresh by its judgment and order dated 13.1.2016. 5. The applicant having sought to bring on record certain rent receipts issued earlier i.e. before 1996 through the application which was rejected by the Revisional Court. This Court set aside the order of the Revisional Court and directed the consideration of the application afresh by its judgment and order dated 13.1.2016. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having proved by additional evidence before the Revisional Court that rent receipts were issued to the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest before 1996, for another shop which was exchanged in place of new shop constructed in 1996, the tenancy would be treated as an old tenancy agreement and would be covered by Section 24 of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 24 of the Act, the tenant who is sought to be vacated on the ground of dilapidated condition of a construction has a right of reentry on demolition of the old construction and erection of a new construction thereon. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in CMWP No. 1271 of 1998 (Indrajeet and another v. Special Judge (Bhrashtachar Nivaran), Gorakhpur and others) decided by this Court on 25.8.2008. He has referred to paragraphs 6 & 7 of the aforecited judgment which are as follows : “6. Basically, the revision was allowed and suit for eviction was decreed on the ground that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. I do not agree with the findings of the Revisional Court. In the agreement, it was categorically mentioned that half of the property in tenancy occupation of the petitioners was being surrendered by the tenant and the remaining half was to be left in the tenancy occupation of the tenant. It was also mentioned therein that landlord would place new tin-roof and would repair the building. Exact word used in the agreement, which is in Hindi is marammat, which squarely means repair. 7. It was also mentioned therein that landlord would place new tin-roof and would repair the building. Exact word used in the agreement, which is in Hindi is marammat, which squarely means repair. 7. Moreover, if old building in tenancy occupation of tenant is vacated by him umder the agreement, that landlord would reconstruct the same and handover new building to the old tenant, Rent Control Act will continue to apply to the newly constructed portion and it cannot be said that as the building has been constructed anew, hence Rent Control Act, which was applicable on the old building, will not apply. This principle is recognised by Section 24(2) of the Act. If building is released under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that it is in dilapidated condition land thereafter new building is constructed and handed over to the tenant, the Act continues to apply to the new building by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act. Exactly, the same principle will apply, when tenant agrees to deliver possession of the tenanted accommodation to the landlord for reconstruction and landlord reconstructs and handovers possession of the newly constructed portion to the tenant. In the instant case, there was not even reconstruction. It was only a case of repair and replacing tin-shed as roof.” 8. From a mere perusal of the aforesaid case, it is evident that in Indrajeet (supra), the old construction was vacated, it was demolished and new construction raised thereon and by an agreement between the tenant and the landlord, one part of the surrendered portion of the building continued to be occupied by the tenants during reconstruction of the remaining portion of the tenancy. 9. The facts in this particular case are different as has been correctly appreciated by the Revisional Court - the Additional District Judge/Fast Tract Court-I, Gautambudh Nagar. 10. In the Revisional Court’s decision dated 30.1.2018, Section 2 sub clause 2 of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1972 have been correctly appreciated. The Rent Control Act does not deal with an agreement of tenancy being old or new for granting an exemption, but only deals with “construction” or “assessment” of a particular premises for the purpose of exemption from the Act. 11. The Rent Control Act does not deal with an agreement of tenancy being old or new for granting an exemption, but only deals with “construction” or “assessment” of a particular premises for the purpose of exemption from the Act. 11. This Court finds from a perusal of the judgments of the learned Courts below that the petitioner’s father may have been tenant of one shop in the premises at Rs. 25/- per month earlier. However that particular shop was vacated by an agreement and a separate shop which was newly constructed on a separate piece of land, the map of which was sanctioned by Nagar Panchayat only on 17.10.1995 was occupied by the petitioner as tenant at Rs. 100/- per month. 12. The construction being made of the shop after sanctioned of map on 17.10.1995 was within the exemption carved out in sub clause 2 of Section of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The new construction was raised after 26.4.1985 and thus exempted for a period of 40 years from the operation of the Act. 13. The findings given by the learned Courts below with regard to construction of shop after 1985 have not been disputed anywhere by the petitioner even in this application. The petitioner has only referred to old tenancy being continued and therefore his case being covered under the protection given by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 14. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents, Sri Dushyant Singh and Sri Mahesh Chand have pointed out that the protection given to a tenant for timely deposit of rent would only apply if and when the Rent Control Act itself would apply. The findings of fact given by the learned Courts below not being perverse, should not be interfered with by this Court in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court therefore does not find any good ground to interfere in the orders impugned in this writ petition. 15. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.