JUDGMENT

MISRA, J. :— The first two appeals by special leave and the third by certificate and the special leave petition raise a common question, of law and, therefore, we propose to dispose of them by a common judgment.

2. The pattern of facts in all these cases is similar. We, therefore, set out the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1314 of 1378 to bring out the point for, consideration in these matters.

3. The appellant Om Prakash Gupta is a tenant of a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- The respondent-landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972 and hereinafter referred to as the Act) did not apply to the shop and the tenant was liable to eviction. The Judge, Small Cause Court, Mainpuri decreed the suit on the finding inter alia that the construction of the shop in suit was completed in the year 1967 and that ten years having not elapsed since then, the provisions of the Act did not apply to the case The defendant went up In revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. but the same was substantially dismissed. The defendant thereupon filed a revision under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in the High court which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge who remitted the following issue to the trial Court :

"On what date was the construction of the building in dispute completed within the meaning of S. 2 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and deemed to have been completed as contemplated by Explanation I (a) thereto."

The Judge, Small Cause Court by his order dated 26th of November, 1977 returned the following finding :

"The construction of the disputed shop will be deemed to have been completed on the date, of the first assessment i.e. 1-4-68 within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972."

The finding, returned by the trial Court was sought to be challenged on behalf of the tenant on the ground that the date of occupation should be taken to be the date of completion of the construction of the shop and not the date of the first assessment. In Tilak Raj v. Sardar Devendra Singh (1976) 2 All LR 721 a learned single Judge of the same High Court had the occasion to consider S. 2 (2) of the Act. He held :

"It is apparent from this provision that for purposes of this Act, a building is to be deemed to be constructed, if it is subject to assessment, on the date with effect from which the first assessment is made. It is immaterial whether the building was constructed actually prior to that date or it had come into occupation prior to that date. The law recognised for the purposes of this Act, the date of assessment as the date of the completion of the building. There is thus no error in the judgment of the Court below." The learned single Judge before whom the revision In the instant case came up for hearing doubted the correctness of the above decision. He, therefore, referred the case to a Division Bench.

4. There is no dispute that the first, assessment of the shop took place on 1st of April, 1968. It is also not in dispute that the shop in question was occupied by the defendant on 16th of June, 1967, and prior to his occupation the shop was in occupation of another tenant for about a month and a half. The appellant sought the benefit of S. 39 of the Act on the ground-that if the date of occupation was taken to be the date of the completion of the construction of the shop, then ten years having elapsed during the pendency of the revision before the High Court, the Act would be applicable. The Division Bench, however, overruled the contention of the appellant and held that the construction of the shop in question would be deemed to have been complete on 1st of April, 1968 and, therefore, the Act would not be applicable to the building till the date of the decisio