JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is defendant's revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of defendant from the premises let out to him. The defendant-applicant contested the plaintiff's suit on a number of grounds. He claimed protection of section of section 39 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. The trial court held that the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act as 10 years period had not expired as contemplated by section 2(2) of the Act. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant-applicant filed revision which was dismissed by the District Judge and the trial court's decree was affirmed. Aggrieved, the defendant-applicant has preferred this revision. 3. The learned District Judge has held that the building question was constructed in the year 1967, therefore, the defendant-applicant was not entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act. Admittedly on the findings recorded by the District Judge. the building in question has now become subject to the provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 as during the pendency of the revision, 10 years period as contemplated by section 40 of the Act had elapsed. 4. The District Judge, committed a patent error in rejecting the defendant- applicant's claim for the benefit of section 39 without determining the date of the completion of the building in question. It appears that there are three portions in the building in question one of which has been under the tenancy of the defendant-applicant. The municipal assessment of the three portions of the building were made on different dates. The District Judge did not record any finding to which of the assessment relates to the portion in dispute. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, a Commission was issued. The Commissioner examined the bricks of the building and submitted his report which was taken into account in determining the date of completion of the building. This was not permissible as the determination of the date of completion of a building is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down under section 2(2) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and not on the physical examination of bricks. 5. This was not permissible as the determination of the date of completion of a building is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down under section 2(2) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and not on the physical examination of bricks. 5. Section 40 of the Act lays down that :- "Where an appeal or revision arising out of suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act did not apply is pending on the date of commencement of this Act, it shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 39, which shall mutatis mutandis apply". 6. Section 39 of the Act protects the interest of a tenant from eviction in any suit from a building to which the old Act did not apply provided the tenant within one month from the date of commencement of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, deposits in the court before which the suit may be pending the entire amount of the rent and damages for use and occupation together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the full cost of the suit. Under section 2(2), the provisions of the Act shall not apply to a building during a period of 10 years from the date on which construction is completed. In other words, on the expiry of 10 years, from the date of the completion of the construction of the building, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply. In a case where a suit is filed before the enforcement of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, a question may arise as to when the 10 years period from the date of completion of the building expired. The Legislature has laid down that this question should be determined in accordance with Explanation to Section 2(2) of the Act. The explanation lays down mode for determining the date of the completion of the building. Firstly, it lays down that the construction of the building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to the local authority having jurisdiction or the date on which the local authority may have otherwise recorded the date of the completion of the building. Firstly, it lays down that the construction of the building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to the local authority having jurisdiction or the date on which the local authority may have otherwise recorded the date of the completion of the building. Secondly, in the case of a building subject to the assessment, the date of completion would be the date on which the first assessment comes into effect. Where the date of report or the date of recording the completion of the construction of the building and the date of assessment are different, the earliest date on which the building in question is actually occupied, shall be the date of the completion of the building. Thus, in a case where the date of first assessment is available, the court should decide as to on what date, the first assessment came into effect as that would be the date of completion of the construction of the building. The proviso to the Explanation further stipulates that if there are different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building, then there may be different date of completion for different units. 7. In the instant case, three different dates of assessment are available on the record. The District Judge has not recorded any finding as to which of these three dates relates to the portion which was let out to the defendant- applicant. Unless this question is determined, the date of completion of' the building cannot be ascertained. A positive finding in this regard is necessary to be recorded. 8. The defendant-applicant claimed that the plaintiff's suit for ejectment could not be decreed for his ejectment on account of section 39 of the Act. This question cannot be determined unless the date of completion of the construction of the building is ascertained. After the determination of the date of completion of the building, an enquiry is necessary to be made to ascertain as to whether the tenant made the necessary deposits within the prescribed period. 9. Since the aforesaid two questions have not been determined by the District Judge or by the trial court in accordance with law, the revision-application succeeds and is allowed and the decrees of the trial court and the District Judge are set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the trial court. 9. Since the aforesaid two questions have not been determined by the District Judge or by the trial court in accordance with law, the revision-application succeeds and is allowed and the decrees of the trial court and the District Judge are set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the trial court. The trial court shall give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Parties shall bear their own costs.