Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—This writ petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 11.8.2015 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar in S.C.C case No. 19 of 2011 (Naresh Chandra Sharma v. Vinod Kumar) and also the Revisional Court order dated 11.2.2016 passed in J.S.C.C Revision No. 16 of 2015 (Naresh Chandra Sharma v. Vinod Kumar.

2. The eviction suit was filed before the Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar on the ground that the shop was let out for running general merchandise business but without permission of the landlord the defendants started business of battery manufacturing. Moreover, the plaintiff did not want to continue the tenancy hence a notice to quit was served upon the petitioner through counsel by registered post. The defendants neither paid rent nor vacated the shop in question and, therefore, the ejectment suit was filed with the relief to deliver possession to the plaintiff/landlord.

3. The suit was decreed by the Small Causes Court (JSCC) on the ground that the tenancy is not protected by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as the shop in question is a new construction exempted from the operation of the Act in view of Section 2(2) of the Act. The petitioner was found in default and that there was no dispute regarding service of notice to quit and, therefore, the suit was decreed. The finding recorded by the J.S.C.C was upheld in revision.

4. Challenging the eviction orders, the main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below had erred in considering the date of completion of the construction of building as 4.8.1989 on the basis of a house tax assessment receipt which was filed by the landlord. In support of his submission, the landlord filed sanctioned map paper No. 25-C and house tax receipt paper No. 24 C to submit that the shop in question is a new construction and therefore, exempted from the operation of Act. There was no document of first assessment of the shop in question. The sanctioned map could not have been relied upon to conclude that it was a new construction made in the year 1989. The conditions as laid down in Explanation 1 of Section 2 (2) to conclude the date of construction of the building do not exist in the present case and as such no definite conclusion could have been drawn in this regard.

5. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Shafiq Ahmad v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor and others, 2003 (1) JCLR 299 (All), in support of his submission that the Court below had illegally concluded that the constructions were made in the year 1989 without examining the relevant evidence for deciding the question of date of construction of the building keeping in view the principles laid down in various decisions of this Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, before dealing with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the date of construction as per Explanation 1 of Section 2(2) for concluding a building to be a newly constructed building, it would be apt to go through the provisions as contained thereunder :

(a) 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 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 (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time:

Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately