DILIP GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE tenant has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 3rd February, 2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute as the landlord bona fide required the premises for his own use as well as for the use of his family members was allowed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has also sought quashing for the judgment and order dated 3rd of April, 2008 by which the Appeal filed by the tenant under section 22 of the Act was dismissed. ( 3 ) SRI Rajiv Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the building in dispute as the building is exempted from the operation of the Act under section 2 (2) of the Act. He further submitted that the finding of bona fide need recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority is not based on the evidence on record and in fact, the landlord did not bona fide require the premises in dispute. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority have recorded categorical findings of facts based on appraisal of evidence which findings do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to refer to section 2 (2) of the Act with explanation 1 (a) and the same is as follows : "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 and 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. 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 and 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 purpose 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 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 : provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately by the landlord and one or more tenants or by different tenants. (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 6 ) THE Legislature was conscious of the fact that difficulties may arise in ascertaining the exact date on which the construction of the building is completed. It has, therefore, added Explanation I to sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act. Clause (a) of the Explanation I provides for the deeming of the date of completion of construction of a building. It has, therefore, added Explanation I to sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Act. Clause (a) of the Explanation I provides for the deeming of the date of completion of construction of a building. This date will be either : (1) the date on which the completion of the building is reported or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, or (2) the date on which the first assessment of the building comes into effect, or (3) where the dates of completion of construction of building reported or otherwise recorded by the local authority and the date of first assessment are different the earliest of the said dates, or (4) in the absence of any report, record, or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied for the first time. ( 7 ) FOR the purposes of the Act a building is deemed to be constructed in the manner provided in Explanation 1 (a) to sub-section (2) of section 2 and it is immaterial whether the building was actually constructed prior to that date. Therefore, completion of the building is to be determined in the light of the provisions of the Act and not on the basis of the factual position. ( 8 ) IN support of his first contention that the building is exempted from the operation of the Act under section 2 (2) of the Act, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the amended paragraph of the objections and also on the additional evidence filed at the appellate stage. A perusal of the amended paragraph of the objections shows that only a bald statement has been made that the building is exempted from the operation of the Act. No specific reason has been mentioned as to why the building was exempted from the operation of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the building was first subject to assessment in 1985 which was within the ten years period prescribed under section 2 (2) of the Act and so the building was exempted from the operation of the Act. The additional evidence that was filed by the tenant of the appellate stage does not show that the building was subjected to assessment for the first time in the year 1985-86. The additional evidence that was filed by the tenant of the appellate stage does not show that the building was subjected to assessment for the first time in the year 1985-86. This document which has been annexed as Annexure-23 to the writ petition, merely shows that it is a copy of House Tax for the year 1985-86. Under no circumstances it can be concluded from this document that the building was subjected to first assessment in 1985. Thus, the Appellate Court was justified in holding that the building was not exempted from the operation of the Act. ( 9 ) AS for the finding of bona fide need, the Courts have recorded the categorical finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence that the landlord who had a family of consisting of himself, his wife, three sons and three daughters had only five rooms. The need of the children and the need to have a separate guest room for the son-in-law were examined and it was found that the landlord needed the additional accommodation. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in Munni Lal and others v. Prescribed Authority and others, AIR 1978 SC 29 clearly observed that while examining the findings of bona fide need of landlord it is not for the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution to reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion which may be different from that reached by the District Judge or the Prescribed Authority. ( 11 ) THE Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .