The date of completion of construction of a building for the purpose of determining the applicability of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is to be determined in accordance with the statutory fiction provided under Explanation 1(a) of Section 2(2) of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 22. 9. 1986 of the Judge small Causes Court decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioner and the order of the revisional court dated 12. 9. 1991 affirming the said judgment in revision.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed Suit No. 20 of 1984 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages on the allegation that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1976 and, therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit of provisions of U. P. Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act ). The tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by notice dated 25. 10. 1984 and he having not vacated the shop in question, the suit was instituted.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contested the suit. It was denied that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1976. It was old building and only some repairs were made in the disputed shop. It was further alleged that he is one of the co-tenants and his father and brother are also tenants. The judge Small Causes Court held that the shop in question was constucted in the year 1976 and the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. It was found that the petitioner was the only tenant and his tenancy was duly-terminated. The suit was accordingly decreed. The petitioner preferred revision against this judgment. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision on 12. 9. 1991.

( 4 ) THE main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has erred in law in holding that the provisions of t he U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable. The version of the plaintiff-respondent was that originally building was in the tenancy of Satish Chandra Degree College for the purpose of boys hostel. The tenant vacated the premises on 4. 2. 1976 because the building pillars had fallen down and students could not live in the rooms. They were vacated after the compromise between parties in Appeal No. 23 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge, Ballia. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application for release of the building in question before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 16 (1) (b) of the act of 1975 on the ground that it was in a dilapidated condition and he would construct the shops for his business purposes. This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 14. 6. 1970.

( 5 ) THE copy of the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer indicates that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the map for reconstruction of the said premises before the Nagar Palika, ballia. He also relied upon the report of the Rent Control Inspector which showed that the accommodation was in a dilapidated condition. It comprises of 18 rooms out of which many rooms had no doors, etc. The outlook of the building was old and dilapidated one. Some of the portion of the verandah on the eastern and western side had been demolished. The accommodation as it stood, most parts of it did not come under the purview of the Rent Control act.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff-respondent appeared as witness in the suit and made statement that he constructed the shop in question in the year 1976 and the petitioner entered into an agreement on 20. 12. 1976. In the agreement it was clearly mentioned that the shop in question has been newly constructed. He further advanced Rs. 12,000 and the same was to be adjusted towards future rent. The petitioner appeared as witness, he denied that he had executed the agreement dated 22. 12. 1976. The plaintiff also filed the copy of the inspection report of the Rent Control inspector (paper No. 71 ). The Judge Small Causes Court, on consideration of the documentary and oral evidence, came to the conclusion that the shop was constructed in the year 1976 and there was no evidence from the Municipal record regarding the date of assessment a