- (1.) This revision is directed against on order passed by the Court below dismissing a suit filed by the appellant for ejectment of the defendants-opposite parties.
(2.) It is not necessary to set out the pleadings of the parties in detail, as the case has to be remanded to the Court below for a fresh decision in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Krishna v. Additional Distt. and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and others, 1982 1 ARC 391 .
(3.) The plaintiff brought the present suit on the assertion that as the building under tenancy had been constructed in the year 1967, the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable. The Court, below relying on decision of the Supreme Court in Ratanlal Singh v. Shrimati Murti Devi,1979 AllLR 595, dismissed the plaintiffs-appellant's suit on the ground that the ten years holiday permitted under Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was available only to the new buildings which are bought into exercise after the coming into force of the said Act. This view is contrary to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gopal Krishan . The Full Bench had occasion to resolve an apparent controversy which seemed to have arisen in consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal Singh .v Shrimati Murti Devi and another subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Swarup Rai v. Shrimati Leelawati,1980 AllLR 395. The Full Bench held that the correct view would be that Section 2(2) of the aforesaid Act is applicable alike to the buildings which were already in existence on the date of coming into force of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as the buildings constructed subsequently thereto.;