PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) THE only point mooted in the present revision is whether the shop in dispute i.e. the property No.28/19, Kashmiri Bazar, Kotwali Ward, Agra of which the petitioner is a tenant @ Rs.200/- per month, is a 'new construction' within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and thus exempt from the operation of the said Act. It has been found by two courts below concurrently that the shop in dispute was a 'new construction' and therefore, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the said shop.
(2.) THE respondent no.3, Smt. Shakuntala Devi who has died during the pendency of the present writ petition, instituted SCC suit No.88 of 1993: Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Pran Nath on the allegations that the disputed shop being a new construction is exempt from the operation of the provisions of said Act and the tenancy has been determined by a simple notice given under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that the said shop was allotted to him in pursuance of the allotment order which was passed with the consent of the landlady on 20th January,1984. The shop in question is old construction and the provisions of the said Act are applicable. The notice dated 13th February, 1993 so received by him is illegal. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. Only two issues were framed by the trial court. Issue no.1 is with regard to the applicability of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and issue no.2 is as to whether the notice has been waived by the plaintiff. The trial judge has recorded findings on both the issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. It consequently, decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2000. The said decree has been confirmed in SCC revision No.63 of 2000 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Agra.
(3.) SHRI B.D. Mandhyan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the findings recorded by the two courts below with regard to the applicability of the provisions of the said Act regarding the shop in question is illegal and against the material on the record. He submits that the question of date of construction of a building, is a jurisdictional question as the applicability of the Act is dependent on it.;