SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23-11-1994 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, hereinafter referred to as R. C. E. O. only. The judgment of the R. C. E. O. has been filed as Annexure 21 to the writ petition. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is for issuing mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the pos session of the petitioner. 2. The relevant facts for the purpose of the present writ petition are that the dispute arose in respect of shop Nos. 1, 2 and 5 situated in Mohalla Goverdhan Dar-waza, Brindaban. The petitioner was oc cupying these shops as a tenant. Landlord Mool Kishore Goswami filed three ap plications separately in respect of each shop under Sections 12/16 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter, referred to as the Act only. In these applications it were mentioned that provisions of the Act are applicable and the petitioner is an un authorised occupant as he is living without any order of allotment. Therefore, legally the shops are vacant. It was also stated that the son of the landlord is unemployed, therefore, he wants to establish his son in theshopno. 1. 3. The second applications was filed in respect of shop No. 2. In this application the landlord stated that he is a Govern ment servant and his retirement is near at hand and he wants to establish some business in shop Nos. 2 and 5 after his retire ment. The third application was in respect of shop No. 5 mainly on the same ground and it was prayed in all these applications that the vacancy be declared and then it may be released in favour of the landlord. 4. The petitioner contested these ap plication on number of grounds. The main grounds of defence was that the petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant of the shop in question; provisions of the Act are not applicable to the shop in question. 4. The petitioner contested these ap plication on number of grounds. The main grounds of defence was that the petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant of the shop in question; provisions of the Act are not applicable to the shop in question. It is stated that he was a tenant and was paying rent to the landlord but when he refused to accept the rent was remitted through money order which was also not accepted by the landlord and then the petitioner deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act, He also denied that the landlords son is unemployed. In additional plea petitioner has stated that shop Nos. 1 and 2 are combined shops and with the consent of the landlord the petitioner is a tenant of those shops on payment of rent of Rs. 200/-per month. The disputed shop was con structed in the year 1984, therefore, the provisions of Act are not applicable. The petitioner is running the shop of religious books etc. and has earned a good will and there is no need to these shops to the landlord. It appears that a commission was also issued in this case by the Prescribed Authority. The Commissioner has sub mitted his report. It is stated by the petitioner that he filed objection against the report of the Commissioner on the ground that the Advocate who has been appointed Court Commissioner is junior of the Counsel for the landlord. An af fidavit was also filed to this effect by the tenant Munna Lai. That affidavit has been filed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed rent receipts, and certified copy of the extract of assess ment register to prove that he was tenant with t|se consent of the landlord and the shop was assessed on a particular date, therefore, on the date of the application the Act is not applicable. The report of the Commissioner is Annexure 14 to the writ petition. The Commissioner has reported that he recorded the statement of the petitioner and the witnesses Radha Krish na and Sunder Lai on the spot and no allotment order was shown by the petitioner. The report of the Commissioner is Annexure 14 to the writ petition. The Commissioner has reported that he recorded the statement of the petitioner and the witnesses Radha Krish na and Sunder Lai on the spot and no allotment order was shown by the petitioner. The objection of the petitioner against the report of the Commissioner is also on record wherein he has reiterated that the Advocate Commissioner Sri Shobh Raj Singh is Junior to Sri R. P. Chaturvedi, Advocate of the landlord and his appointment is purposive. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the landlord to the effect that no new construction was made rather only some alterations were made and the construction is old one, therefore, the provisions of the Act are applicable. 5. The R. C. E. O. has considered the statements of the witnesses and held that since the petitioner himself deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act in the court of Munsif, Mathura which is ad mitted to him, therefore, the provisions of Rent Control Act were applicable to the building in question and as there was no allotment in his favour the tenancy will be illegal under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act and it would be deemed to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. He accordingly declared the vacancy by order dated 23-11-1994. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the landlord. Rejoinder, sup plementary counter, supplementary rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. In the counter affidavit it is stated that as the petitioner deposited the rent under Sec tion 30 of the Act he cannot say that the provisions of the Act are not applicable or that it was filed under wrong advice. It is also stated that objection against the Commissioners report was considered and even if the report is ignored there is no other evidence that the construction is new one. It is also stated that the R. C. E. O. has also held that the building was con structed in the year 1964. The finding is not perverse. It is also stated that objection against the Commissioners report was considered and even if the report is ignored there is no other evidence that the construction is new one. It is also stated that the R. C. E. O. has also held that the building was con structed in the year 1964. The finding is not perverse. It is also stated that after the declaration of the vacancy the shops were also released in favour of the landlord and while releasing the shops the R. C. E. O. has held that the petitioner has got more than-40 shops in his possession and has a market in the name of his wife and has let out most of the shop at fancy rent. In supplementary affidavit of the petitioner he has stated that papers filed alongwith the affidavit which amounts to the admission of the landlord as well as the statement of the landlord which was filed alongwith the Commissioners report, are not available on record of the court below. It is stated that an application to this effect was filed before the R. C. E. O. but the authorities are sleeping over the matter and are not able to trace out the same filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. In the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that the petitioner filed revision against the order of releasing the shop in dispute. He also filed some documents alongwith this rejoinder affidavit which were not filed before the R. C. E. O. alleging it to be the admission of the landlord that the shop was let Out after construction. It is also stated that he filed receipt of a sum of Rs. 4,500/- which was paid by him for the con struction of the shop as non-refundable amount but this receipt has been ignored by the R. C. E. O. It is also stated that Municipal Assessment has also been ig nored. The first assessment was of 1-4-1995. Therefore, this document was relevant. Supplementary affidavit alongwith assessment register has also been filed by the petitioner to prove the construction of the building. The landlord has also filed supplementary counter-af fidavit to the effect that the tenant has got more than 40 shops in the name of his wife. He has annexed copy of the assessment register. In reply to this supplementary counter-affidavit of the landlord the petitioner has filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit. The landlord has also filed supplementary counter-af fidavit to the effect that the tenant has got more than 40 shops in the name of his wife. He has annexed copy of the assessment register. In reply to this supplementary counter-affidavit of the landlord the petitioner has filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit. It is stated that there are 8 shops which were constructed by the wife of the petitioner. Some of the affidavit on record are also on the point of age of the construction. 7. From the pleading of the parties and judgment of the R. C. E. O. it is crystle clear that the main question was as to whether the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the accommoda tion in question. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of the fact that the building was assessed for the first time in the year 1985, therefore,. the provisions of the Act were not applicable and the application under Section 12/16 of the Act was also not maintainable. His contention is that mere filing of the ap plication under Section 30 of the Act by the petitioner under wrong advice will not operate as estoppel against the petitioner and the court should have considered this legal point which goes to the jurisdiction of R. C. E. O. on the basis of the evidence available on record. His further contention is that there was evidence on record to prove that the construction was made in the year 1984 and the petitioner came in possession on the basis of the lease-deeds In the year 1985, i. e. after the construction. and that the Commissioner inspected the spot without giving any notice to the petitioner as contained under the" provisions of Rule 8 framed under the Act. Therefore, Commissioners report is not a good piece of evidence. Sri landon has placed before the Court the provisions of Sections 12,15 and 16, Rules 8 and 27 and placed reliance on a case, Smt. Kanti Khare v. HI Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1983 U. P. R. C. C. 212 and Sec tion 34 of the Act also. His contention is that under Rule 8 notice should have been given. For appreciating the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Rule 8 is quoted herein below: "8. His contention is that under Rule 8 notice should have been given. For appreciating the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Rule 8 is quoted herein below: "8. Ascertainment of vacancy (Sections 12, 16 and 34 (8)].- (1) The District Magistrate, shall before making any order of allotment or release in respect of any building which is alleged to be vacant under Section 12 or to be otherwise vacant or to be likely to fall vacant, get the same inspected. (2) The inspection of the building so far possible, shall be made in the presence of the landlord and the tenant or any other occupant. The facts mentioned in the report should when ever practicable, be elicited from at least two respectable persons in the locality and the con clusion of the inspection report shall be pasted on the notice board of the office of the District Magistrate for the information of the general public, and an order of allotment may be passed not before the expiration of three days from the date of such posting, and if in the meantime any objection is received, not before the disposal such objection. (3) Any objection under sub-rule (2) shall be decided after consideration of any other per son concerned may adduce. " 8. A bare perusal of this provision would show that the inspection was to be made in presence of the landlord and the tenant and objections were to be invited and disposed of. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he has raised objection against the bona fide of the Commissioners report which was ex pane should not have been taken into consideration in considering the year of the construction of the house in ques tion. 9. In reply learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the petitioner cannot challenge the , order of the R. C. E. O. on the point of maintainability of the application or jurisdiction when he himself admitted that provisions of the Act are applicable as he has moved application under Section 30 of the Act and the assess ment register or other receipts filed by the petitioner were of no help on the point of construction of the house and the petitioner was bound by his own admis sion. In reply learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that in view of a case, 1980 ARC 466, Ram Swaroop Rai v. Smt. Lilawati the period of construction is to be assessed on the basis of the municipal record. He has also placed reliance on a case 1992 (2) ARC 110, Rama Kant Gupta v. Rameshwar Das on the point of fact of deposit under Section 30 of the Act. 10. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner at length I am of the view that the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the assessment register should have been seen to fix the date of the construction or Commissioners report should have been ignored when there was objection against that or the receipts and other affidavit should have been considered for fixing the date of the construction is not sustainable. Admittedly, the petitioner filed applica tion under Section 30 of the Act when the landlord refused to accept the rent. This will amount the admission of the tenant. His submission that it was filed on the basis of wrong advice cannot be a proper ex planation. Therefore, even if other evidence on the point of construction have not been discussed that will be not some thing illegal as the admission is a best piece of evidence and is binding on a person making such admission and if he has tried to explain it, the explanation is not satis factory. The decision submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner stand on different footing and they are discussed herein below. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in a case, 1983 U. P. ARC 212, Kanti Khare v. III Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others that if some report of the inspection is filed the parties is to ascertain the fact existing on the spot. Therefore, the parties have right to file objection. His contention is that as the Commissionerwas appointed in this case, who was junior to the Counsel for the other side, therefore, the objection which was filed by the petitioner should have been considered. It is true that objec tion was filed by the petitioner but never the less the court has come to the con clusion that the petitioner has admitted while moving application under Section 30 of the Act that the building was covered by the provisions of the Act. It is true that objec tion was filed by the petitioner but never the less the court has come to the con clusion that the petitioner has admitted while moving application under Section 30 of the Act that the building was covered by the provisions of the Act. He has also placed reliance in a case, 1992 (2) ARC 110 Rama Kant Gupta v. Rameshwar Das for the purpose that if the provisions of the Rent Control Act are not applicable to any property then the deposit made under Sec tion 30 of the Act will not be of any conse quence in holding that the Act is ap plicable to the property in question. I am not convinced with the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the point. As the question as to when the building was constructed was to be decided on the basis of the evidence available on record. Answer to that question was to be as to whether the building in question was covered by the provisions of the Act or not. In this case the petitioner was placing reliance on certain assessment register and the other side was placing reliance on the Commissioners report and the applica tion filed by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act, therefore, if the court con sidered the application under Section 30 of the Act moved by the applicant as an admission I think there is no illegality in the judgment in question. He has placed reliance on a case, 1980 ARC 466, Ram Swaroop. Rai v. Smt. Lilawati on the point of date of construction of the building and the effect of the Municipal record. He has also placed reliance to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the application under Section 30 should not have been given weight in view of the municipal as sessment. The facts and circumstances of the present case are clear that first the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of the provisions of the Act to save ejectment on the ground of default and tendered the rent through money order. But when it was refused he deposited the rent under Section 30 of-the Act with a view to take benefit of this order in ejectment proceed ing. But when it was refused he deposited the rent under Section 30 of-the Act with a view to take benefit of this order in ejectment proceed ing. But now when other proceedings under Section 12/16 of the Act have started he wants to say that provisions of the Act are not applicable. I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take this plea in the present case. 12. From the facts and circumstances and from the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties it is apparent that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority for declaration of thevacancy. 13. The writ petition, therefore,fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Petition dismissed. .