Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—This is a tenants petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 18 August 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Revision No. 82 of 2003 (Raj Kumar Rathore v. Ramesh Kumar Ghai and others). The Court below allowed the landlords revision, set aside the judgment and decree dated 30 September 2003 passed by the Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar, thereby decreeing the suit for eviction against the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly is that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit before the Small Causes Court for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against the petitioner for the shop situated on the ground floor of house No. 118/168, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur. The tenancy was determined by duly serving a notice upon the petitioner, however, the petitioner failed to comply the terms of the notice.

3. It was urged by the landlord that the construction being a new construction which was completed in 1987, therefore, was outside the ambit of Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner contested by filing written statement. The tenancy of the disputed shop was admitted but the tenant would urge that the property in dispute was constructed prior to 1987, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply to the shop in dispute.

4. The trial Court upon considering the evidence and material on record, returned a finding that the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove that the shop was constructed in 1987, accordingly, held that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable and dismissed the suit.

5. Aggrieved, the respondent-landlord preferred a revision. The revisional Court came to the conclusion that the shop in dispute was exempted from the applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972, recording that the disputed premises was constructed in 1987, thus allowing the revision and decreeing the suit. The tenant-petitioner is assailing the revisional order.

6. The only question for determination is as to whether the revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction in recording a finding of fact that the shop in question was constructed in 1987, while reversing the finding of fact returned by the trial Court.

7. Explanation (1) to Sub-clause (2) of Section 2 provides that the provisions of the Act would not apply to buildings for a period of 10 years from the date of completion of the construction. The period is computed from the date of completion of the building. In terms of Explanation (1) the construction of a building is deemed to have been completed on the date on which completion thereof, is reported or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction. 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 earlier of the said date would be relevant for deciding the question of date of construction of the premises. According to the respondent/landlord, the shop in question was demolished and partially reconstructed in 1985, thereafter given on rent at Rs. 300/- per month to the petitioner on 1 April 1985. The entire construction was completed in 1987, accordingly Nagar Nigam, Kanpur assessed the new construction for the first time in April 1987. The suit for eviction was filed in 1993 before the expiry of 10 years, hence, it was contended that the provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the disputed premises on the date of filing of the suit. The Revisional Court upon considering the assessment orders of the Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur, for the assessment years 1978-1983, recorded that seven tenanted shops were shown. The shop of the respondent/defendant, admittedly was not shown in the said assessment. The annual rent of the then existing building was assessed at Rs. 2400. The revisional Court would further record that for assessment years 1987-1992 (pape