Judgment Alok Singh, J. Landlord has filed present writ petition assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2004, passed by the Civil Jude, Senior Division, Pauri Garhwal whereby J.S.C.C. No. 10 of 2001, Chandra Prakash Bhatt Vs. Ghalib Khan and another was dismissed as well as judgment and decree dated 21.07.2005, passed by the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal whereby S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 2004 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that admittedly plaintiff/petitioner herein is the landlord of the shop in question. It is also admitted that defendant /respondent No.1 herein was inducted by the plaintiff/petitioner as tenant in the shop in question initially @ Rs.800/- p.m., however, with the consent of both the parties, it was later on enhanced to Rs.1,200/- p.m.. Undisputedly, plaintiff petitioner issued one notice on 02.05.2001 to the tenant respondent No.1 herein under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy of the tenant/respondent No.1 herein on expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice specifically stating therein that shop in question was constructed in the year 1989, therefore, it was not covered by the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Service of notice is not denied by the tenant. Plaintiff/petitioner herein thereafter filed Suit No. 10 of 2001 in the Court of J.S.C.C./Civil Judge (J.D.), Pauri Garhwal for the recovery of arrears of rent as well as for the eviction of the tenant wherein defendant filed his written statement. Suit so filed was dismissed by the Trial Court and thereafter revision was preferred which also came to be dismissed. Therefore, present writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff/landlord/petitioner herein and Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Matloob, Advocate for the tenants/respondents herein and have carefully perused the record. 4. Undisputedly, plaintiff in his notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 02.05.2001 specifically stated that shop in question was constructed in the year 1989 and having received such notice, defendant/tenants did not care to deny that that building was constructed in the year 1989. Plaintiff has taken a specific plea in paragraph No. 7 of the plaint that shop in question was constructed in the year 1989. Defendant in his written statement in paragraph no. Plaintiff has taken a specific plea in paragraph No. 7 of the plaint that shop in question was constructed in the year 1989. Defendant in his written statement in paragraph no. 26 pleaded that it was wrong to say that building was constructed in the year 1989 rather building was constructed twenty years before, therefore, provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable on the building in question. It is important to mention herein that defendant did not plead in which year building was constructed. On the other hand, plaintiff has taken a specific stand that building was constructed in the year 1989. 5. Explanation 1 of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as under :- “Explanation I [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 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;” 6. As per Explanation (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act 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 authorities and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment comes into effect. 7. In the case in hand, neither report to the local authority about the completion of the building is placed on record nor first assessment is placed on record. There is no material available on record as to when building was first occupied. 8. 7. In the case in hand, neither report to the local authority about the completion of the building is placed on record nor first assessment is placed on record. There is no material available on record as to when building was first occupied. 8. Undisputedly, defendant/respondent No.1 herein has executed rent notes pertaining to the shop in question on 01.12.1999, paper No. 5-C on the trial Court record as well as on 01.06.2000, paper No. 9-C on the trial Court record wherein tenant/defendant No.1 has admitted that shop in question was constructed in the year 1989. 9. Learned counsel for the tenant/respondent No.1 vehemently argued that since both the rent notes are for the period more that 11 months, therefore, same ought to have been registered as required under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and since both the rent notes are unregistered documents, therefore, cannot be read in evidence. 10. It is true that if a document which requires mandatory registration is not registered, cannot be read in evidence. But there is a caveat to it, i.e., such document can be read for the purpose of collateral purpose. 11. In view of the important fact that plaintiff has come before the Court with specific case that shop in question was constructed in the year 1989 and defendants did not say in which year it was constructed. In view of the fact that neither completion report is recorded by the local authorities nor first assessment is available on record, this Court has to find out other collateral evidence to come to the right conclusion. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, if both the rent notes, i.e. paper No. 5-C and 9-C are read for the collateral purpose, it can very well be said that shop was constructed in the year 1989. As per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, a fact which is admitted by one of the parties need not be proved by the other party since, admission is best evidence. Therefore, I find that shop was constructed in the year 1989, thus U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has no application in the present case. 13. There is another aspect of the matter. Therefore, I find that shop was constructed in the year 1989, thus U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has no application in the present case. 13. There is another aspect of the matter. In the present case, tenant wants to take benefit/protection of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, defendant/tenant is required to discharge onus to prove that building is an old construction thus is covered by the Rent Act. In the present case, defendant/tenant could not prove as to when building was constructed. 14. In view of the fact that tenancy was monthly tenancy, therefore, same was at will and was terminated on the expiry of 30 days from the service of notice dated 02.05.2001, therefore, both the Courts below had absolutely no other option except to decree the suit. 15. I do not find any illegality in the findings of both the Courts below that respondent No.2 could not be proved in possession as sub tenant in the tenanted shop. I am conscious about the fact that revisional court or this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India ordinarily should not disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Court below. However, if findings are perverse on the face of it or are against the settled principle of law, this Court cannot be a silent spectator and this Court must come forward to discharge the pious duty to correct the illegality committed by the Courts below. 16. Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below. 17. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Both the judgments impugned in the present petition are hereby set aside. J.S.C.C. suit No. 10 of 2001 filed by the plaintiff stands decreed. Tenant/respondent No.1 shall hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlord/petitioner within 60 days from today, failing which, landlord shall be entitled to get the defendant No.1 evicted forthwith. Tenant shall also pay mesne profit at the rate of agreed market rent @ Rs.1,200/- p.m. from 05.06.2001, i.e. after the 30 days from the date of service of notice, i.e. from the date of termination of tenancy till actual physical possession is handed over to the landlord. Tenant shall also pay mesne profit at the rate of agreed market rent @ Rs.1,200/- p.m. from 05.06.2001, i.e. after the 30 days from the date of service of notice, i.e. from the date of termination of tenancy till actual physical possession is handed over to the landlord. Any rent deposited by the tenants with the Courts below shall be released in favour of the landlord and any amount paid by the tenant during the pendency of this writ petition to the landlord shall also be adjusted. 18. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost.