JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - A suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed by the Plaintiff Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner which was decreed by the trial court and the decree was affirmed in revision. Aggrieved by those orders the Petitioner-tenant has filed this writ petition. 2. The suit was brought on the allegations that the Plaintiff was the owner of the shop in dispute which was constructed in December, 1966 and in respect of which the first assessment was made by the Nagar Palika, Etah in October, 1970. The Defendant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and was liable to ejectment. The plaint case too was that the building had been completed in the eye of law in October, 1970 and consequently the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. In these circumstances the Plaintiff filed the suit merely after giving notice to the Defendant. 3. The Petitioner contested the suit and pleaded that the construction of the shop was completed prior to the year 1960-61 and the Plaintiff had no right to bring the suit under the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were attracted to the facts of the case. The sole question that arose for determination, therefore, was whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable in respect of the shop in suit or not. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act provides: 2(2). The sole question that arose for determination, therefore, was whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable in respect of the shop in suit or not. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act provides: 2(2). Except as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 12, Sub-section (1-A) of Section 21, Sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or Sub-section (3) of Section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed: Explanation I-for the purposes of this Sub-section: (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 a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment there of 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.... 5. On a plain reading of the explanation engrafted on Sub-section (2) of Section 2 it appears that the Legislature has created a legal fiction which dictates a legal inference which may not be in conformity with the real, factual position. In fact, the very essence of a legal fiction is assumed existence of something that does not actually exist. Therefore, even though the date of actual completion of construction of the building may be different, yet the law does not take notice of such date unless it is followed by the fulfillment of one of the two conditions, namely (i) such completion is reported to or otherwise assessed by a local authority or (II) the final assessment thereof comes into existence. This interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 2 has been fully expatiated upon in two decisions viz. Hirday Ram Vs. Harbhajan Singh Kochar, (1977) AWC 355 and a Supreme Court decision Suresh Chand v. Gulam Chisti 1982 ARC 392. Applying the ratio of these authorities to the facts of the present case it becomes apparent that the first assessment of the shop in suit was admittedly made in October, 1970. Hirday Ram Vs. Harbhajan Singh Kochar, (1977) AWC 355 and a Supreme Court decision Suresh Chand v. Gulam Chisti 1982 ARC 392. Applying the ratio of these authorities to the facts of the present case it becomes apparent that the first assessment of the shop in suit was admittedly made in October, 1970. It is not the case of the parties that in the instant case the completion of construction of the building was earlier either reported to or otherwise assessed by a local authority. It follows that the case would not come within the ambit of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 until ten years have passed thereafter i.e. until 1980. On the contrary, the suit itself was filed in the year 1978 and was, therefore, exempt from the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The landlord was manifestly entitled to file the suit under the Transfer of Property Act 'simpliciter' uninhibited by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 6. I find no force in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.