JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - These are two revision applications under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1977 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Mathura, in two revisions under section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act arising out of suit Nos. 102 and 103 of 1972. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these two revision applications are that Jagannath Prasad, opposite party in both the revisions, was the owner of a shop situate in Qasba Sadabad, Distt. Mathura. It became in a dilapidated condition inasmuch as its two walls and the roof had fallen down. In January 1968 Jagannath Prasad reconstructed it and converted it into two shops one in the north and the other in the south The northern shop was let out to Manohar Lal who is revisionist in Civil Revision No. 3233 of 1977 and the southern one was let out to Ram Babu who is revisionist in Civil Revision No. 3232 of 1977. Each of them agreed to pay Rs. 50/- per month as rent besides Rs. 5/- per annum as town area tax and electric charges. As both of them fell in arrears of rent from 1.8-1971 notices of demand and eviction were given to them on 1-1-1972 but to no effect. As the shops were not governed by the provisions of the Rent Control Acts suits viz Nos. 102 and 103 of 1972 were filed against Ram Babu and Manohar Lal respectively for their ejectment from the shops and for the recovery of Rs. 400/- as arrears of rent and damages and pendente lite and future damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. Rs. 20/- were claimed as town area tax. These suits were filed in the court of the Munsif Mahaban on the small cause court side. As the valuation of the suits was above Rs. 1000/- and exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif, they were transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Mathura, exercising the powers of small cause Court. 3. Both the defendants-revisionists contested the suits on the some grounds. As the valuation of the suits was above Rs. 1000/- and exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif, they were transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Mathura, exercising the powers of small cause Court. 3. Both the defendants-revisionists contested the suits on the some grounds. They pleaded that the learned Civil Judge, Mathura, had no jurisdiction to try the suits ; that the shops were pre-1951 construction and were governed by the old and new Rent Control Acts, that they did not commit any default in the payment of rent and that the notices to quit were invalid. 4. In both the cases the learned trial court held that the shops were constructed in January 1968 and were not amenable to Rent Control Acts and the notices to quit were valid. Accordingly both the suits were decreed. 5. Ram Babu and Manohar Lal filed revision applications under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act and pressed only two points viz., that the shops were governed by the Rent Control Act and the notices to quit were invalid. Both these pleas were negatived by the lower revisional court and the revision applications were dismissed. Hence the defendants have filed these two revision applications. As common question is involved in both of them, they are being disposed of together by one judgment. 6. The first point for consideration is whether the shops in question are newly constructed within the meaning of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 or are old constructions. The evidence on the record clearly points to the conclusion that originally there was one shop. Its two walls and one roof fell down. Obviously it will be deemed to have become in a dilapidated condition and required reconstruction. In January 1968 the landlord got a plan sanctioned for the construction of these shops and in the same month he got the shops in dispute constructed in place of the old one. It was done by raising two walls-one in front and the other on the back side. One wall was effected in the middle in order to divide the shop in two portions. A new roof was placed over both the shops a verandah was constructed. Witnesses appeared to testify to this fact. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that these shops were newly built in January 1968. 7. One wall was effected in the middle in order to divide the shop in two portions. A new roof was placed over both the shops a verandah was constructed. Witnesses appeared to testify to this fact. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that these shops were newly built in January 1968. 7. Another question which arises for consideration is as to when the shops should be deemed to have been completed within the meaning of the new Act. Section 2(2) Explanation (a) reads as follows : "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 (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time" Sub-clause (c) of this Explanation states : "Where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition." In the instant case both the lower authorities have held that the shops were completed in January 1968. Section 2(2) Explanation (a) requires that the court should determine the date of completion of the construction. It has to be done by determining as to when the completion of the building was 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 came into effect and where the said dates are different the earliest of the said dates and in the absence of any report, record or assessment the date on which it was actually occupied. As provided in clause (c) of the Explanation substantial portion of the old shop was rebuilt. Therefore, the whole building will be deemed to have been constructed on that date. 8. As provided in clause (c) of the Explanation substantial portion of the old shop was rebuilt. Therefore, the whole building will be deemed to have been constructed on that date. 8. In the instant case no effort was made by either party to adduce evidence whether the completion of this building was reported to or was recorded by the local authority. If so, on which date, if' it was not subject to assessment, then the court should have determined the actual date of its occupation. The finding that constructions were completed in January 1968 was vague and not in accordance with law. As held in the case of Tilakraj v. Sardar Davendra Singh, 1966 (2) A.L.R. 721, for the purposes of this Act a building is deemed to be constructed in the manner provided in section 2(2) Explanation (a), it is immaterial whether the building was actually constructed prior to that date or it had come into occupation prior to that date. Therefore, completion of the building is to be determined in the light of the provisions of the Act and not on the basis of factual position. 9. The result is that the revision applications are allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned lower revisional court are set aside. The cases are remanded to his court for disposal of the revisions afresh after determining in the light of section 2(2) Explanation (a) of the Act when the shops should be deemed to have been completed. He will give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on this point only. As the cases have become old, they will be expeditiously disposed of. Costs on parties. 10. This judgment shall also govern the other connected Civil Revision No. 3233 of 1977.