Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is landlord’s writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop. Respondents No. 3 and 4 Sri Niwas Gupta and Smt. Raj Kumari wife of Sri Niwas Gupta are tenants of the shop in dispute since 1985. Shop in dispute was let out through registered lease deed dated 20.3.1985 for five years at the rent of Rs. 500/- per month. The lease deed was registered on 16.5.1985.

3. Landlord petitioner instituted a suit for eviction against the tenants respondents by filing plaint on 17.12.1990, which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 58 of 1990 before J.S.C.C., Bareilly. The suit was transferred for disposal before Additional J.S.C.C., Bareilly. In the written agreement, it was mentioned that the shop in dispute was constructed in the Year, 1980.

4. The main dispute was/is regarding date of construction of the shop in dispute. According to the landlord, the shop in dispute was assessed for the purposes of house tax for the first time in the Year 1987-88, hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable, when suit was filed. On the other hand, defendants pleaded that the first assessment was made in the Year 1977, hence the Act was applicable when the suit was filed. Both the parties filed extracts of Assessment Register of 1977 and 1987-88 before the Courts below, copies of the said extracts are Annexure R.A.-1 and R.A.-3 to the rejoinder affidavit filed in this writ petition. Trial Court held that the first assessment of the shop in dispute was made in 1987-88, hence the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation along with pendente lite and future rent/damages was decreed on 4.8.1995. Against the said judgment and decree, tenants-respondents filed S.C.C. Revision No. 36 of 1995. A.D.J.-III, Bareilly allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 11.9.1996, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. This writ petition is directed against the said judgment and order of revisional Court.

5. Revisional Court held that shop in dispute was included in the assessment of 1977, hence Act was applicable thereupon on the date of filing of the suit.

6. There is no dispute about the legal position that in case shop in dispute was constructed in thon Year 1977, the the Act became applicable in 1987 and suit was liable to be dismissed as no ground of default etc. as mentioned under Section 20(2) of the Act was made out, however if it is held that the shop in dispute was constructed/deemed to be constructed in 1987-88, then the Act was not applicable when suit was filed. In fact, on the buildings constructed/deemed to be constructed in April, 1985 or afterwards the Act becomes applicable after 40 years.

7. The date of construction for the purposes of applicability of the Act is to be decided in accordance with Explanation 1(a) to Section 2(2) of the Act, which is quoted below :

“The construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied.........”

In the assessment of 1977, the old number of the entire building which was double storied, was mentioned as 158-A. In the assessment of 1977, new numbers were given, i.e. 100 for the residential portion and 100/1 for a shop, which was described as having two doors (do dar ki). The house was shown to be in the occupation of previous owner (from whom petitioner purchased). The shop was shown to be in tenancy of Asha Trading Company and the rent payable by