M.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a tenant. The respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent. It was also averred that the defendant has caused substantial damage to the premises in question. The petitioner contested the suit and pleaded that no substantial alteration has been done in the accommodation by him. He also denied that there was any arrear of rent. It was stated that the shop was constructed about 20 years ago and therefore U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable.
(2.) THE learned Judge Small Causes decreed the suit holding that the shop was less than ten years old. U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable. The tenancy has been validly terminated. The defendant was in default and caused substantial damage to the premises. Against the said decree the petitioner filed a revision. It was dismissed finally and the finding of the judge Small Cause was upheld.
(3.) THE only point involved in the case is whether the premises in dispute was constructed within ten years' of the suit or not. On this point both the courts below have recorded categorical finding of fact that the shop in dispute is a new one and the Act is not applicable. This is a pure finding of fact.;