Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE applicant was a tenant. THE landlord filed a suit for ejectment in 1973. THE suit was decreed. THE applicant went up in revision which was, however, dismissed. He has now come to this Court in revision.
(2.) THE concurrent findings are that the petitioner's sons had purchased four rooms in 1963. THEy did not care for it and allowed them to fall down with the result that when the suit was filed, no substantial structures were standing. THE courts, however, held that it was immaterial for. the application of proviso to sub-Section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. THEy did not give the benefit of sub-Section (4) to the defendant. The findings of fact is that the petitioner's sons purchased a share in the house consisting of four rooms and that they were in possession of those rooms. They permitted them to fall down and did not repair or reconstruct them-These findings which are on questions of fact, do not disclose any jurisdictional defect. The proviso to sub-Section (4) says ; "Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has not vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area." The proviso is explicit. It excludes the applicability of sub-section (4) to a particularised tenant-the tenant is one, who, or any member of whose family, has built or has acquired in a vacant state any residential building. The only relevant factor is that the tenant or a member of his family should have acquired in a vacant state a residential building. If at the time of acquisition the premises were a residential building and the same were acquired in a vacant state, the conditions of the proviso are fulfilled. It is immaterial whether the tenant or a member of his family actually resides in that house. The fact that subsequent to the acquisition the building may have either partly or wholly fallen down, seems to be equally irrelevant. If subsequent events of this nature were to be material for the application of the proviso, its restriction could be evaded by a tenant by letting out the residential building after acquisition in a vacant state so as to advance a plea that he was not in possession of any residential building in the same city. His being in possession or the residential building being capable of being lived in or possessed by the tenant at the time of eviction proceeding seem to be immaterial. The only material circumstance is that the tenant has acquired a residential building in a vacant state. This condition is fulfilled in the present case. The courts below cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in applying the proviso and consequently excluding the applicability of sub-Section (4) to Section 20 of the Act. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.;