The completion date of the building is the deciding factor for the application of the Rent Control Act, and the assessment date and permission to occupy the building are not relevant for determining the construction date.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 2nd February 1990 passed in W. P. No. 12184/1989, The Appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. He is 1n occupation of the premises bearing No. 757 situated at 28th Main, III Phase, J. P. Nagar, Bangalore. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the premises.

( 2 ) A proceeding under Section 10a of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'rent Control Act') was initiated against the appellant-petitioner on the ground that he had occupied the premises in question which was governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Act without an order of allotment, therefore, his occupation was illegal, hence he was liable to be evicted under Section 10a of the Rent Control Act. The defence of the appellant-petitioner was that the building was not five years old on the date he occupied the premises, therefore, the provisions of Parts II and III of the Rent Control Act were not attracted to the premises.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner occupied the premises in question on 12-11-1981. The rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. e. , the Deputy Commissioner, have held that the building was completed on 1-10-1976 as per the completion report submitted by the owner of the building to the Bangalore Development Authority. Therefore they have negatived the contention of the petitioner and have ordered for eviction of the petitioner under Section 10a of the Rent Control Act. The learned Single Judge also has held thus: "the factual finding of both the authorities below is that the building was completed on 1-10-1976. This finding is based on the completion certificate given by the landlord to the bangalore Development Authority. Therefore, the fact that the assessment came to be levied in the year 1977 will be of no consequence. Thus, the factual finding that the building is more than five years old and therefore the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 would apply, cannot be assailed. 2. Writ Petition is dismissed. 3. Time is granted till 30-4-1990 to vacate the premises. " accordingly, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition.

( 4 ) IT is contended by Sri Shivaram, learned Counsel for the appellant that a mere report by the owner that the construction of the building has been completed on 1-10-1976 is not the deciding factor for the purpose of finding out whether the building is five years old in order to attract the provisions of Parts II and III of the Rent Control Act; that what is necessary is the assessment of the building by the local authority that in the instant case the building has been assessed with effect from 1-10-1977 therefore, the occupation of the petitioner is within five years from 1-10-1977. It is also contended that in view of the provisions contained in Section 310 of the karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporations Act') in respect of the buildings situated in the Corporation area, the building cannot be occupied unless the owner submits a completion certificate in the prescribed form to the Commissioner and the permission is granted by the Commissioner to occupy the building. Therefore, it is contended that the date of grant of occupancy certificate should be taken as the date for completion of the construction for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Rent control Act inasmuch as without such occupancy certificate, building cannot be occupied. Hence the provisions of Parts II and III of the Rent Control Act, were not attracted to the premises in question, on 12-11-1981. Therefore, the proceeding initiated under Section 10-A of the Rent control Act was not maintainable.

( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid contentions, the points that fall for consideration are as follows: i) Whether the provisions of Parts II and III of the Rent Control Act were attracted to the premises in question on 12-11-1981? ii) Whether t