Transitional rent control protection applies only to proceedings already pending when the Act commenced, not later eviction suits.

A newly constructed building remained outside the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act for ten years from the relevant assessment date, and that period was correctly computed from the first assessment date under the statutory explanation. Transitional protections under Sections 39 and 40 applied only where a suit, appeal or revision was already pending when the Act commenced, so they did not protect an eviction suit filed after commencement. The statutory bar on eviction proceedings under Section 20 could not arise merely because the ten-year exemption expired during later litigation. The eviction decree was therefore sustained and the tenant could not invoke the Act's protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant was entitled to the benefit of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that the ten-year exemption period expired during the pendency of the proceedings, and whether Sections 39 and 40 of the Act could protect a suit for eviction instituted after the Act had already come into force.

Analysis: The exemption under Section 2(2) of the Act applies to a newly constructed building for ten years from the date of completion, and where the building is subject to assessment, the first assessment date is the relevant date for computing that period under Explanation 1. The Court accepted that the ten-year period was to be computed from the first assessment date, but held that Sections 39 and 40 operate only where the suit or the connected appeal or revision was already pending on the date of commencement of the Act. Since the eviction suit itself was filed long after the Act had commenced, those transitional provisions did not apply. The Court further held that Section 20 bars institution of an eviction suit only when the Act applies, and that the statutory bar could not be attracted merely because the ten-year exemption expired while the litigation was pending.

Conclusion: The tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Sections 39 and 40, and the eviction decree was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory protection under the rent control enactment was unavailable to the tenant in the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Transitional protections under Sections 39 and 40 apply only to suits, appeals, or revisions already pending when the Act commenced, and the expiration of the ten-year exemption during later proceedings does not retrospectively bar an eviction suit instituted before the exemption ended.

---