JUDGMENT Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J - The present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 by the plaintiff of S.C.C. Suit No. 11 of 1999. The said suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is owner and landlord of House No. 11/744, situate at Turkmaan Gate, Aligarh. The defendant is tenant of shop no. 2 situate in the said building on monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- and Rs. 240/- towards water tax and house tax, total monthly rent was Rs.1440/-. The shop in question is a "new construction" within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was assessed for the first time with effect from 1st April, 1988. The property in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff by means of a sale deed dated 8th October, 1979. He applied for permission to Aligarh Development Authority to raise "new construction" in place of existing construction. The proposed map of the new construction was sanctioned on 11th June, 1984 and the permission was granted on 12th June, 1984 with the rider that the construction should be raised within a period of three years. Due to paucity of funds, the plaintiff apprehended that he will not be able to complete the construction within the aforesaid period. Therefore, on 3rd March, 1986, he applied for extension of time which was granted. The shop in dispute was let out to the defendant through a rent note dated 27th February, 1998. The defendant tenant is in arrears of rent since 1st April, 1998 and the tenancy was determined by means of notice dated 31st May, 1999 which was served by refusal on 10th June, 1999. The suit was instituted by presenting a plaint on 4th October, 1999 and claimed a decree towards recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment. It was also pleaded that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1986 and the first assessment being 1st April, 1988, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the building is exempt for a period of 40 years with effect from 1st April, 1988. 2. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations on the pleas inter alia that the rate of rent was Rs.600/- inclusive of all the taxes. 2. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations on the pleas inter alia that the rate of rent was Rs.600/- inclusive of all the taxes. The building in question is old construction of the year 1975 and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. It was further pleaded that the defendant tenant is not in arrears of rent and he has paid the rent upto 31st October, 2000. Rent for the subsequent period has been deposited in the Court. Rent receipts were not issued by the landlord. 3. The trial court framed as many as six points for determination in the suit. It has been found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable, the rate of rent is Rs.600/- per month, service of notice on the defendant tenant is valid and the defendant tenant has paid rent upto 31st October, 2000 as pleaded by him and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18th December, 2006. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court, learned counsel for the plaintiff landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord") submits that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, illegal and against the material on record. The trial court on irrelevant considerations in the face of the documentary evidence has arbitrarily rejected the plea of the landlord that the shop in question is a "new construction". There is voluminous evidence in the shape of sanctioned map and the sanction order passed by the Aligarh Development Authority. The veracity or validity of those documents have not been disputed. The finding recorded by the trial court on point no. 1 deserves reversal. Questioning the legality and validity of the findings recorded by the trial court with regard to rate of rent and default, it was submitted that the finding of the trial court is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence as same is based on irrelevant considerations. 4. Shri Divakar Rai Sharma, appeared at the time of hearing of the revision who submits that he has no instruction in the matter as the defendant tenant has taken away the file from him. Any other counsel on behalf of the defendant tenant is not present. This left the Court to proceed with the hearing of the revision ex parte. 5. Any other counsel on behalf of the defendant tenant is not present. This left the Court to proceed with the hearing of the revision ex parte. 5. Taking the first point first, with regard to date of construction, it may be noted that indisputably the landlord has filed permission dated 12th June, 1984 (paper no. 11-C) granted by the Aligarh Development Authority permitting the landlord to demolish the existing construction and to raise "new construction" as per the proposed plan. The proposed plan was sanctioned by the authority concerned on 11th June, 1984 which is on record. One of the conditions granting permission to raise "new construction" is that the said permission shall be valid for a period of three years. The landlord contends that as he was facing financial crisis, he applied for extension of time which was granted on 3rd June, 1986. As against these documents, noticeably, the defendant tenant could not produce any evidence in rebuttal. The trial court has not doubted that any such permission was not granted or map was not sanctioned by the Aligarh Development Authority. It however, proceeded to non suit the landlord on the ground that when the landlord had three years time to raise the construction as per permission dated 12th June, 1984, there was no occasion for him to apply for extension of time which was granted on 3rd March, 1986 as the period of three years had not expired by then. The said approach of the trial court, in my considered view, is faulty. At the most, extension of time sought for, in the year 1986 may be a superfluous action on the part of the landlord but this circumstance in any manner will not caste any doubt to the permission to raise the construction which was granted on 12th June, 1984. Moreover, the legality and validity of the second permission was not in issue and in any manner was not required to be considered in the present suit. In the case on hand the dispute is with regard to the date of construction as defined under Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial court was required to decide the issue relating to date of construction within the parameters of Section 2(2) of the said Act. In the case on hand the dispute is with regard to the date of construction as defined under Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial court was required to decide the issue relating to date of construction within the parameters of Section 2(2) of the said Act. Explanation to Section 2(2) of the Act provides that 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, ...... . 6. In the case on hand, the landlord has filed the date of first assessment, a copy whereof has been filed a annexure-5 to the affidavit in support of the stay application. It clearly shows that the building was assessed with effect from 1st April, 1988. 7. A conjoint reading of the sanctioned letter given by the Aligarh Development Authority and also the sanctioned map with the said assessment list, in the absence of any contrary material on record, there is no difficulty in holding that the shop in question was assessed for the first time with effect from 1st April, 1988 and the finding to the contrary as recorded by the trial court cannot be allowed to stand. The trial court has failed to give effect to the sanctioned letter and the sanctioned map while considering the question of date of construction of the building. It swayed away by irrelevant consideration that there was no need of getting the second sanction on 3rd March, 1986. As noticed herein above, there is no contrary evidence on record except a bald and general statement of the defendant that he has seen the disputed construction since the year 1975. Viewed as above, the finding recorded by the trial court on point no. 1 relating to date of construction, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand and the same is hereby set aside and it is held that the shop in dispute is a "new construction" as its first assessment is dated 1st April, 1988 and this being so, building is exempted from the operation of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for a period of 40 years. The suit having been filed within the aforesaid period, as per Section 2(2) of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question. 8. In view of the finding recorded by the trial court under point no. 3 holding that the notice determining the tenancy was validly served, the irresistible conclusion is that the defendant tenant is liable for eviction. This part of the decree of the trial court is, therefore, reversed. 9. Now, the point with regard to rate of rent and arrears of rent remain to be decided. 10. Contention of the landlord is that the said shop was let out to the defendant tenant under a rent note dated 27th February, 1998. The defendant tenant has paid rent for the months of February and March, 1998 and is in arrears of rent since 1st April, 1998. His further case is that the rent was Rs.1200/- per month and Rs. 240/- towards water tax and house tax, thus total monthly rent was 1440. In support of the aforesaid pleas the plaintiff landlord has examined himself as P.W.-1, Santosh Kumar (P.W.-2) and Jalaluddin (P.W.-3). He has also examined the witnesses of rent deed and filed two rent receipts relating to months of February and March, 1998. The rent receipts have been discarded by the trial court on the finding that in the oral deposition, the landlord has stated that only one rent receipt was issued and the tenant has denied the signature on the rent receipt. It discarded the rent note on the ground that the rent receipts have been discarded. Also the rent note was not filed along with plaint, but was filed subsequently, on 31st January, 2002. It was verified before the notary. By making general observations that the signature of the witnesses on the rent note do not apparently tally with the signature on the affidavit, it rejected the rent note. In my considered view that there has not been proper appreciation of evidence of their respective parties on this point. It has failed to consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The defendant tenant has examined Muziburrehman as D.W.-2 in support of his case. The tenant has come out with the case that he took the shop on rent in presence of Muziburrehman. It has failed to consider the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The defendant tenant has examined Muziburrehman as D.W.-2 in support of his case. The tenant has come out with the case that he took the shop on rent in presence of Muziburrehman. A categorical statement has been made in this regard by him in his deposition. But Muziburrehman (D.W.-2) has a different story to tell. He states that the shop in question was not taken on rent in his presence. Thus, he contradicts the defendant. This is a very vital aspect of the case with regard to appreciation of the tenant's evidence. It has been ignored totally. The trial court has accepted the statement of the defendant tenant that the rate of rent was Rs.600/- per month as according to it, it finds corroboration from the statement of Muziburrehman (D.W.-2), which is not so. Muziburrehman (D.W.-2) has not stated in so many words that rate of rent was agreed between the parties at Rs.600/- per month. What he has stated is that a sum of Rs.600/- was given by the defendant two-three times before him towards rent. He further states that he has no knowledge about the rate of rent. 12. The fact that Muziburrehman (D.W.-2) may be interested witness as he was client of the defendant's father who happened to be a Advocate, has not been at all taken into consideration by the trial court. However, it is not necessary for this Court to dwell upon the aforesaid issues any further in view of the order proposed to be passed in revision. 13. The court is of the view that the evidence cannot be reappreciated in a revision preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It is a case of misreading of evidence or of non consideration of vital aspects of the case relating to evidence. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable in the interest of justice that the matter be restored back to the trial court for fresh determination. Accordingly, it is directed that the trial curt shall redetermine the issue relating to the rate of rent and its arrears. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable in the interest of justice that the matter be restored back to the trial court for fresh determination. Accordingly, it is directed that the trial curt shall redetermine the issue relating to the rate of rent and its arrears. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that an application was filed by the landlord before the trial court to get the signature of the defendant tenant on the rent note and the rent receipts examined through handwriting expert. The court may consider the propriety of the said request, if so made by the plaintiff in view of the denial of the signature by the defendant tenant on those documents 14. The revision succeeds and is allowed. In view of the finding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the notice determining the tenancy was validly served on the defendant tenant, a decree for ejectment of the defendant tenant is granted. 15. The defendant tenant is liable to vacate the shop on or before 31st December, 2010, subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall deposit the entire arrears of rents and damages @ Rs.600/- per month (for the time being) after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited for the period upto 31 December, 2010 within a period of one month from today before the trial court. (2) Within the aforesaid period, the applicant shall file an undertaking on affidavit before the trial court that he will vacate the disputed shop on or before 31st December, 2010 and shall hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff landlord without creating any third party interest. 16. In case of default in compliance of either of the conditions stipulated above, the time granted shall stand vacated automatically. If he fails to vacate the disputed shop on or before 31st December, 2010, he shall be liable to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from 1st January, 2011 till actual date of vacation. 17. The said amount of damages has been fixed keeping in view that the prices of immovable property have been sky rocketed, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Fedral Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 705. 18. 17. The said amount of damages has been fixed keeping in view that the prices of immovable property have been sky rocketed, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Fedral Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 705. 18. The trial court shall redetermine the question relating to rate of rent and its arrears on the basis of available material on record. It may permit the parties to get examined the signatures of defendant on the rent note and the rent receipts through handwriting expert. 19. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed in part. The suit for ejectment of the defendant tenant from the shop no. 2 situate in House No. 11/744, Turkmaan Gate, Aligarh is decreed. The trial court is required to redetermine the question of rate of rent and its arrears afresh in the light of the observations made above, within a period of six months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this Judgment. No order as to costs.