JUDGMENT S.D. Aggarwal, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceeding for allotment in respect of the flat on the first floor numbered as 23 Ka situate in Patelganj, Meerut City. One Shanti Devi was occupying the said premises on the first floor as it was let out to her at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem. Thereafter on 16th June, 1976 Smt. Shanti devi was forcibly evicted from the premises as she was a dancing girl and the keys of the accommodation was handed over to the authorities concerned. On 18th June, 1975 the petitioner moved an application before the authorities requesting them to hand over the key to the petitioner. This was made on the ground that the premises in question was not governed by the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This application has been attached as Annexure 1 to the petition and was addressed to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut. On this application the Rent Control Inspector was directed to inspect and report. On 22nd July, 1976 the Rent Control Inspector reported that the premises in question was constructed in the year 1974 and certain other matters were also reported. Thereafter on 31st July, 1976 another report was submitted in which it was reported that the property was vacant. Thereafter on 7th August, 1976 the petitioner's grand-son appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and stated that the property was a new construction and was constructed in 1974. On 7th August, 1976 the son of the petitioner, Prakash Narain also appeared before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He further stressed his personal need in respect of the accommodation. On that very day an affidavit of Prakash Narain was also filed in which it was categorically stated that the building in dispute was construed in the year 1974 and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not apply. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 24th August, 1976 held that the provisions of the Act would apply and thereafter allotted the premises to one Sukhbir Singh. Against the order dated 24th August, 1976 allotting the premises to Sukhbir Singh a Miscellaneous Revision was filed in the Court of District Judge, Meerut. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order dated 24th August, 1976 held that the provisions of the Act would apply and thereafter allotted the premises to one Sukhbir Singh. Against the order dated 24th August, 1976 allotting the premises to Sukhbir Singh a Miscellaneous Revision was filed in the Court of District Judge, Meerut. The revision came up for hearing before the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut who by his judgment dated 21st February, 1979 dismissed the revision. The petitioner has now challenged the order dated 21st April, 1979 and 24th August, 1979 by means of the present petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not apply to the first floor of 23 Ka, Patelganj, Meerut and the finding to the contrary recorded in the impugned order is manifestly erroneous. 3. Nobody has appeared to contest this petition. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the revisional Court have only relied on the statement by the grad son of the petitioner. It has been observed by both the authorities that the grand son of the petitioner has stated on 2nd August, 1976 that some of the walls of the premises are old and the new wall has been replaced and as such the authorities found that it is only a case of renovation and not a case of new construction. 4. The statement of the grand son of the petitioner has been attached as Annexure 4 to this petition. The statement is to the following effect :- "Pratham gat bhagume 3 feet unchi deewaren purani bani hain baqi unchai nai banakar chhaten dali gain hain." This statement does not show that the building was already in existence and some renovation had been made in the first floor. The only statement of the grand son was that 3 feet walls already existed which was a continuation of the walls on the ground floor. Thereafter walls were raised and the ceiling laid. It is only when a ceiling is raised that the property comes with the definition of the word "building" under the Act. Unless the roof was laid no question arose of the property being a building covered by the 'Act. In the circumstances it was a case of a building constructed in 1974. It is only when a ceiling is raised that the property comes with the definition of the word "building" under the Act. Unless the roof was laid no question arose of the property being a building covered by the 'Act. In the circumstances it was a case of a building constructed in 1974. The case of renovation can only be when there is already a building as contemplated by the Act. A building has to bear a roof. In the instant case there was no roof constructed prior to the laying down of the ceiling in the year 1974. In the circumstances it cannot possibly be held to be a case of renovation. The view of the contrary taken by both the Courts below is manifestly erroneous. 5. It may further be observed here that on 7th August, 1976 the son of the petitioner Prakash Narain had filed an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating therein categorically that the first floor had been built in the year 1974. There was no denial to this fact and in fact the report of the Rent Control Inspector dated 22nd June, 1976 supported this version in the absence of any denial and any evidence to the contrary it was incumbent up on authorities to have accepted the case set up by the petitioner. Sri Prakash Narain his further stated that the building was for the first time assessed to house tax on 1.4.1976. This fact was also not controverted. In the circumstances it is clear that the property in dispute was built in the year 1974. The finding to the contrary recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and by the revisional Court is manifestly erroneous. 6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed and orders dated 24th August, 1976 and 21st April, 1979 are quashed. The allotment order in favour of Sukhbir Singh is also quashed. It is further declared that at present the property is not governed by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.