JUDGMENT M.P. SINGH, J. 1. THIS is a defendant's revision arising out of a suit for ejectment from the disputed shop and for recovery of Rs.1055/- as arrears of rent, house-tax and water-tax from 1-10-1987 to 6-12-1987 and mesne profits at the rate of Rs.475/- per month and interest on the amount due from the defendant till the possession is handed over to the plaintiff. 2. THE suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents on the ground that they purchased the disputed land through separate sale deeds dated 15-2-1977 and 18-2-1977. At the time of the purchase there was no roof over the shop. THE floor was broken and the walls were also in damaged condition. THE plaintiffs got a map sanctioned for the construction of the said shop on 29-7-77 but on account of certain personal difficulties the construction was done in December, 1978. THE shop was newly constructed. THE fact of completion was reported to Executive Officer of the Municipal Board on 15-1-1979. After the construction, the shop was let out to the defendant at the rate of Rs.415/- per month excluding water tax and house tax. THE defendant was in arrears of rent from 1-10-1987. It was further alleged that U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was not applicable. THE suit was filed after terminating the tenancy under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 3-11-1987. The suit was contested by the defendant applicant denying the rate of rent. There was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the present suit and the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was applicable as the disputed premises was an old one. According to him only renovation was done which does not amount to new construction. The notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid. 3. THE trial court decreed the suit on 16-8-1988. 4. HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The main question involved in this case is whether U. P. Act XIII of 1972 is applicable in the present case or not. The notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid. 3. THE trial court decreed the suit on 16-8-1988. 4. HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The main question involved in this case is whether U. P. Act XIII of 1972 is applicable in the present case or not. Explanation I to sub section (2) of Section 2 of the Act provides as under:- "Explanation I. -For the purposes of this 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 thereof come into effect, and where the said dates are different the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record of assessment, date on which it is actually occupied not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction of quarding the building under construction) for the first time." 5. A perusal of the above provision clearly indicates that the new buildings have been exempted from the operation of the Act for a period of ten years. This period of ten years have to be computed in the manner from the date as indicated in Explanation I. (By means of the amending Act 17 of 1985 if the building is completed on or after 16th April, 1985 then ten years may be referred to as twenty years from the date on which its construction is completed). 6. THE plaintiff-opposite parties have examined Sri Ishwar Dayal Gupta as PW 1, Bhanwar Singh as PW 2, and Jag Roshan Lal as PW 3 and filed the sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 15-2-1977 and 18-2-1977, certified copy of the Municipal record from 1976-77 to 1985-86, certified copy of the application dated ) 5-1-1979 sent to the Nagar Palika by the plaintiff no. 1 and the copy of the sanctioned map dated 3/4-4-1977. THE defendant has also 41-Rep.-1989 produced oral evidence as well as documentary evidence to controvert the factum of completion of the house in 1978. A perusal of Exs. 3 and 4 conclusively proves that the shop was newly constructed after the purchase. Ex. 1 and the copy of the sanctioned map dated 3/4-4-1977. THE defendant has also 41-Rep.-1989 produced oral evidence as well as documentary evidence to controvert the factum of completion of the house in 1978. A perusal of Exs. 3 and 4 conclusively proves that the shop was newly constructed after the purchase. Ex. 9 is the document which proved that the building was completed in December, 1978 and the fact was reported to the Executive Officer, Palika on 15-1-1979. THE electricity connection was also sanctioned in the same month. Relying upon these documents the court below has recorded a clear finding that the construction was completed in the month of December, 1978. It is not disputed that the construction was reported on 15-1-1979 and the rent deed was executed on 31-7-1979 in favour of the defendant. Thus on the admitted facts it can safely be held that under the Act the house will be deemed to have been completed on 15-1-1979. THE Act is not applicable. The learned counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted relying upon a decision of this Court reported in 1980 ALJ 229 Jagdish Prasad v. District Judge, Ghaziabad, where the question was whether the altered accommodation should be regarded as new or old construction and it has been held therein:- "I am inclined to agree with the contention that the words 'substantial addition' in Clause (c) take within their ambit not merely the addition of wholly new construction increasing the area of the building, but also the alternation of the existing building into a new accommodation by remodelling it which may include the use of some parts of the old structure. The test for determining whether the altered construction should be regarded as old or new under Clause (c) would be whether after considering the area added the alterations effected and the cost incurred in alterations vis-a-vis the presumptive cost of the old building utilised and the form of structure of the building after the alterations it can be said that the parts utilised structure." 7. THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived in as much as these objections have not been set up in the instant case. Here the only question is whether it was entirely new structure or it was only a remodelling and the finding recorded on the basis of evidence is that it is entirely new construction. THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is misconceived in as much as these objections have not been set up in the instant case. Here the only question is whether it was entirely new structure or it was only a remodelling and the finding recorded on the basis of evidence is that it is entirely new construction. So the case relied upon by the applicant is not at all relevant. 8. ANOTHER cave referred by the learned counsel for the applicant is reported in Kastoor Chand Sarraf v. District Judge, Lalitpur, 1980 ARC 16. This case has also no application because in that case an old construction was converted in a new premises by addition and alterations. In the instant case an entirely new building has been constructed. The authority cited is wholly irrelevant. No other point was pressed. 9. THE findings recorded by the court below are all findings of fact. THE evidence cannot be reappreciated afresh in revisional jurisdiction. THE order does not suffer from any illegality. 10. THE revision is dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the applicant is permitted to continue in possession till 30-6-1989 provided he files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit in the court below by 16-2-1989 that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff-opposite party on 30-6-1989. He will also deposit the entire decretal amount and the rent due upto 30-6-1989 by 16-2-1989. In case of default this part of the order will automatically become inoperative. Revision dismissed.