Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case from the very pleadings of respondent-landlord it was clear that the construction of building in question had completed in February, 1977 when, for the first time, it was occupied by petitioner-tenant and, therefore, in 1984 when application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") was filed, 10 years period having not elapsed, Act 1972, was not applicable to the accommodation in question and both the courts below having failed to consider this aspect of the matter have committed patent error and have acted wholly without jurisdiction, hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He also submitted that this aspect was raised by petitioner time and again and even by filing a miscellaneous application but the same was rejected by Trial Court vide order dated 16.01.1992 (Annexure-31 to the writ petition) observing that this is a jurisdictional issue and can be heard and decided while hearing the matter finally but thereafter while hearing the matter finally both the courts below have totally avoided and ignored this issue which would have gone to the root of the matter barring the very jurisdiction of courts below under Act, 1972. 2. It is no doubt true that the landlord in his application filed under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act, 1972 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has pleaded nothing about the date of completion of construction of shop in question so as to throw any light on the question of applicability of Act, 1972 on the said shop. 3. In the written statement (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) which was filed on 20.11.1984 initially it appears that no such objection was raised by petitioner-tenant also that Act, 1972 was not applicable to the shop in question being a new construction made within 10 years when the application was filed. However, an additional application was filed by respondent-landlord in which she herself has stated that the land on which shop was constructed itself was purchased by her vide registered sale deed dated 15.01.1970 (27.01.1970) and thereafter the construction of shop commenced in 1972 which completed in December, 1972. At that time Act, 1972 was not applicable. However, an additional application was filed by respondent-landlord in which she herself has stated that the land on which shop was constructed itself was purchased by her vide registered sale deed dated 15.01.1970 (27.01.1970) and thereafter the construction of shop commenced in 1972 which completed in December, 1972. At that time Act, 1972 was not applicable. Possession of shop for the first time was given to petitioner-tenant on 01.02.1977 on which date also the Act, 1972 was not applicable since 10 years had not completed. It is contended that it is in these circumstances, no allotment order was required in 1977 when petitioner's tenancy was created in the shop in question. 4. It is in view of the above facts brought on record by landlord herself, the petitioner moved a miscellaneous application praying for rejection of application filed by respondent-landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act, 1972 being without jurisdiction since the suit was filed within 10 years from the date of completion of construction of the building in dispute and, therefore, Act, 1972 was not applicable. 5. This application filed by petitioner (paper No. 131C) was rejected by Trial Court vide order dated 16.01.1992 by observing that this is a jurisdictional issue 'and can be heard and decided finally while hearing main application filed under Section 21 (1)(a) and there is no reason to decide the question of jurisdiction, i.e., applicability of Act, 1972 treating it a preliminary issue. Having said so, thereafter, both the courts below though noticed the above objection raised by petitioner-tenant but have not at all discussed the same in the impugned judgements. In the appellate order, the Court has specifically noticed the above objection of petitioner-tenant that Act, 1972 was not applicable and, therefore, application under Section 21 (1)(a) was not admissible but on this aspect there is no discussion at all to show whether Act, 1972 was applicable or not. 6. It is nobody's case that there was any assessment by local body within the territorial jurisdiction whereof the shop in question fell showing any date regarding completion of construction or assessment as contemplated in Explanation I (a) of Section 2 sub-section (2) of Act, 1972. In absence of any such date, it is the date when building is first occupied by tenant. 7. It is not the mere civil construction work which will determine the date of completion of construction. In absence of any such date, it is the date when building is first occupied by tenant. 7. It is not the mere civil construction work which will determine the date of completion of construction. This issue has already been considered by this Court after considering various relevant authorities on this aspect in Writ Petition No. 5865 of 1995, Pradeep Kumar Vs. The District Judge, Jalaun & Others, decided on 13.07.2012 (reported in 2012 (3) ARC 196 and following the same, I need not to repeat all those authorities hereat. Since in the present case, the Appellate Court has only noticed the issue but not discussed the same and has not recorded any finding thereon, I intend, in the fitness of things, to remand the matter to Appellate Court to decide this question, "what is the date of completion of construction of building", in view of Section 2(2), Explanation l(a) and thereafter to record specific finding as to whether Act, 1972 was applicable at the time when application under Section 21 (1)(i) was filed. In case the court below finds that date of completion of construction within 10 years from the date of filing of application under Section 21 (1)(a) and the Act, 1972 was not applicable, it shall pass appropriate order accordingly dismissing application under Section 21(1)(a) being not maintainable but in case the finding is recorded otherwise, the judgments impugned in this writ petition shall stand with all consequential benefits. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the above manner. No costs. Petition accordingly allowed. _____________