JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent judgments dated 10.11.2003 and 29.4.2004 by which the suit for eviction and arrears of rent filed by the respondent landlord has been decreed by both the courts below. 3. The respondent landlord instituted a SCC Suit No.10 of 1999 against the petitioner with the allegation that he was a tenant of the disputed shop situated near Mawana Bus Stand in district Meerut @ Rs.,125/- per month apart from electricity and other charges. It was further alleged that the petitioner fell in arrears of rent since September 1998 and despite the service of notice terminating the tenancy on 9.12.1998, neither he tendered the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. It was further alleged that the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') was not applicable to the premises. 4. The petitioner tenant contested the said suit after admitting the tenancy inter alia alleging that he was not in arrears of rent of more than four months and despite an invalid notice, he tendered the amount which was refused forcing him to deposit in Court and it was further alleged that the Act did apply to the premises. 5. After the parties had led their evidence, both the courts below recorded a finding that the Act was not applicable and the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was valid and therefore decreed the suit for eviction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged that the respondent landlord himself in the plaint had admitted that the disputed premises were constructed in 1983-84 and let out to the petitioner in April 1985 and therefore since the period of ten years had expired on the filing of the suit, the Act would be applicable. In support of his contention he has relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court rendered in the case of Hirday Narain Singh & another vs. Mollo Lal Srivastava [1986 ACJ 184]. 7. No doubt in the case of Hriday Narain Singh (supra), this Court had held that where the date of completion is admitted to the plaintiff, it would not be necessary for applying the deeming clause. 7. No doubt in the case of Hriday Narain Singh (supra), this Court had held that where the date of completion is admitted to the plaintiff, it would not be necessary for applying the deeming clause. However, in the present case, perusal of the plaint shows that though the landlord had pleaded that the shop was built between 1983 and 1984 and was let out to the petitioner in 1985, but there is also an averment that the Act was not applicable to the said premises, the alleged admission has been explained by him. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different than those in Hriday Narain Singh's case. The Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Marwah & others vs. Smt. Samundri Devi [ AIR 1987 SC 2284 ] and in the decision of Saleem vs. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar & others [1998 (2)ARC 617] has held that the date of occupation of completion of the building would be irrelevant if the building is subjected to assessment and it would be the date of first assessment which would be relevant for the purposes of applicability of the Act. The courts below have found that the building was subjected to assessment for the first time w.e.f. 1.10.1985 and there was no report of completion by the Local Authority and, therefore, it held that the Act would not apply as ten years had not elapsed. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. No other point has been urged. 9. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.