The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of properly considering the assessment date and the legal fiction provided by Explanation 1 of Section 2(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act in determining the applicability of the Act to a building.

Yatindra Singh, J.

This is the writ petition against the order dated 10. 10. 1996 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed by the Spl/addl. District Judge, Saharanpur (Respondent No. 1) allowing the revision of tenant-Respondent and dismissing the suit of the landlord-petitioner. FACTS:

2. THE petitioner is the landlord of the premises in dispute, which is shop. Yashpal Singh (Respondent No. 2) is the tenant of the same at the rate of Rs. 120 per month. THE landlord filed a suit on 20. 12. 1988 after terminating the tenancy on the ground that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) does not apply to the same. THE defendant is liable for eviction.

The trial Court after considering the evidence on record has held that the assessment was done in the year 1981-84 and as the suit was filed in the year 1988 within ten years from the date of assessment, the Act does not apply. The trial Court decreed the suit on this finding. The tenant filed a revision. He filed an application in the revision for summoning the original assessment register for the year 1978-79. According to him the shop was assessed earlier and there was a forgery in the same. This application of the tenant was rejected by the revisional Court by its order dated 12. 12. 1994 on the ground that the tenant ought to have summoned the document before the trial Court and there is no reason to summon it before the revisional Court. Thereafter the matter was taken up on merit. The revisional Court held that in the assessment for the year 1978-79 the word 'khandahar' is mentioned and after the word 'shop' The word 'khandahar' appears to be a forgery. If there was, in fact, 'khandahar' then there was no question of assessing the shop. He held that this assessment is from 1. 4. 1978 and as the suit is filed after ten years from this date, the Act was applicable. The suit was dismissed.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties. S. K. Singh appeared, for petitioner-landlord and Sri I. N. Singh argued on behalf of tenant-respondent. The counsel for the petitioner states even if the finding of the revisional Court is taken to be correct then the earlier assessment order is dated 15. 12. 1979 and not 1. 4. 1978 as mentioned in the impugned order and the revisional Court has not applied its mind. He-has also filed the assessment list of tax from 1. 4. 1978 to 31. 3. 1981 in which the shop is alleged to be assessed on 15. 11. 1979. He has mentioned in para 4 of the writ petition that the assessment order is dated 15. 11. 1979. The tenant in para 3 of the writ petition has stated that this assessment was from the year 1978, in which it was assessed to Rs. 1,760 and it was on objection reduced to Rs. 800 by the order dated 15. 11. 1979. The revisional Court has not applied its mind to this aspect.

4. SECTION 2 (2) of the Act provides exemption from the operation of the Act to a building during 10 years from the date of its construction. Explanation 1 of Section 2 (2) provides a legal fiction for finding out the date of completion of a building. So far as, it is relevant here, it says that the building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect. The revisional Court should have applied its mind on what date of assessment has come into effect.

CONCLUSION:

5. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is sent back for re-decision in accordance with observation made above. Parties will appear before the authority concerned on 12th July, 1999.

Petition allowed.