S. U. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) LANDLORD-RESPONDENT No. 3 Mohd. Yunus filed two suits for eviction against both the petitioners who are his tenants. Both the petitioners are independent tenants of two adjoining shops. The landlord purchased the accommodation in dispute in the year 1976. According to the petitioners the accommodation in dispute was in the form of a single dokhani shop, which was converted by the landlord into two shops by erecting partition wall in between and making consequential repairs. On 22. 8. 1983, S. C. C. Suit No. 373 of 1983 was filed against petitioner no. 1 and S. C. C. Suit No. 374 of 1983 was filed against petitioner No. 2. In the plaints it was stated that the constructions were new hence U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13, 1972)was not applicable to the shops in dispute. J. S. C. C. , Meerut on 25. 10. 1986 decreed both the suits holding that the shops in dispute were new construction. Against the said judgment and decree two revisions were filed. IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut allowed the revisions and remanded the matter to decide afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. After remand the matter was heard again and again. J. S. C. C. , Meerut, through judgment and decree dated 25. 3. 1989, decreed both the suits by a common judgment as both the suits had been consolidated. Against the said judgments and decrees both the petitioners filed two revisions. Revision of petitioner No. 1 was numbered as S. C. C. Revision No. 109 of 1989 and that of petitioner No. 2 Habib Ullah as S. C. C. Revision No. 108 of 1989. XIIth Additional district Judge, Meerut, through judgment and order dated 18. 7. 1992, dismissed both the revisions hence this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE only point involved in this case is regarding date of completion of construction and applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. ( 3 ) THE main contention of learned counsel for the tenant is that landlord himself admitted that the notice, which was given by Nagar Palika and received by him was in respect of enhancement of tax and not in respect of new construction. The said portion of evidence has been reproduced in para 7 of the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE main contention of learned counsel for the tenant is that landlord himself admitted that the notice, which was given by Nagar Palika and received by him was in respect of enhancement of tax and not in respect of new construction. The said portion of evidence has been reproduced in para 7 of the writ petition. Placing reliance upon Thakur D. v. D. D. C. , 1983 ALJ 1382 (para 11), it has been argued that admission is best piece of evidence and decisive of matter provided it is clear, certain and unambiguous. ( 4 ) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Ram Swaroop Rai v. Leelawati, 1980 ARC 466 and om Prakash Gupta v. Dig. Vijendra Pal, AIR 1982 SC 1230 (2), that for deciding date of construction as provided under Explanation 1 to Section 2 (2) of the Act oral evidence including admission is not much relevant in the presence of house tax assessment and that house tax assessment is conclusive evidence to decide the date of construction. Under the aforesaid explanation even if building is constructed and occupied prior to house tax assessment still the date on which house tax for the first time assessed will be the date of construction. The said explanation is quoted below : Explanation (1 ).-- (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 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 ) THE landlord pleaded that in the year 1978 he reconstructed the shops, initially the roof was of wooden planks and logs, which was replaced by linter roof. In the sale deed of 1976 through which landlord purchased the property in dispute, it was mentioned that the property, which was sold was in dilapidated condition and almost demolished. ( 5 ) THE landlord pleaded that in the year 1978 he reconstructed the shops, initially the roof was of wooden planks and logs, which was replaced by linter roof. In the sale deed of 1976 through which landlord purchased the property in dispute, it was mentioned that the property, which was sold was in dilapidated condition and almost demolished. The seller of the landlord was examined as witness by the tenant who testified the correctness of the facts mentioned in the sale deed. Nagar Palika had also issued notice (challans) to the Landlord, which was exhibit-4 on the file of the trial court on the ground that he had made new constructions. It was mentioned therein that landlord after demolishing the old constructions made new constructions. This squarely falls within the clause of recording by the Municipal Board as used in the Explanation 1 to Section 2 (2) of the Act. (Vide S. K. Jain v. S. S. Jain, ), AIR 1997 SC 2291 , 1996 (8) SCALE 536, (1997)9 SCC 298 , [1996] Supp9 SCR 28 ). Exhibit-6 is the copy of house tax assessment through which house tax was substantially enhanced to Rs. 396, w. e. f. 1. 10. 1978. ( 6 ) TAX Inspector of Nagar Mahapalika, Meerut, who was examined as witness also proved the case of the landlord. He has stated that at the time of his inspection he found that new constructions had been made. ( 7 ) REVISIONAL court in para 12 of its judgment also took into consideration exhibit-5 which is a notice given by Vice President, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut, dated 25. 5. 1978 in respect of new constructions. In the face of these documents pertaining to recording of construction by Municipal Authorities and imposition of house tax in consequence of new construction, no fault can be found with the view of the courts below to the effect that building in dispute was newly constructed in the year 1978. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed too much reliance upon single line of oral statement of landlord, which is given in para 7 of the writ petition to the effect that notice was for enhancement of tax and not for new construction. After new construction at the place of old one tax was enhanced drastically. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed too much reliance upon single line of oral statement of landlord, which is given in para 7 of the writ petition to the effect that notice was for enhancement of tax and not for new construction. After new construction at the place of old one tax was enhanced drastically. In any case in view of the documentary evidence in respect of recording of new construction by the Municipal Board and assessment of enhanced house tax no amount of other evidence particularly oral can be looked into. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. ( 10 ) BOTH the petitioners are granted six months time to vacate provided that each of them within one month from today files an undertaking before the J. S. C. C. to the effect that on or before 4. 1. 2006 he will vacate the shop in dispute and hand over its possession to the landlord. For this period of six months each of the petitioner shall within one month from today deposit Rs. 3,000 before the J. S. C. C. for immediate payment to the landlord-respondent (this amount has been calculated as damages for six months at the rate of Rs. 500 per month ). Within one month from today each of the tenant petitioner shall also deposit the entire decreetal amount due till today before J. S. C. C. for immediate payment to the landlord respondent. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant petitioner shall be evicted through process of the court in execution proceeding after one month. . .