JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Ms. Shruti Malaviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Sharma holding brief of Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is the owner and landlord of the shop in dispute which is alleged to be shop no. B-1,Bazar Pukhta Qasba Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar. The suit of the petitioner for arrears of rent and eviction of the respondent tenant from the shop in dispute was decreed by the court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 22.8.2008 holding that the respondent no. 1 defaulted in payment of rent and since the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable he is not entitle to avoid his eviction on the ground of default. 3. The respondent filed revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 challenging the judgment and order of the court of first instance. The revision has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2010 holding that the shop is covered by the Act and the petitioner is entitle to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the court of first instance has been set aside and the suit has been dismissed. 4. The above revisional judgment and order dated 22.9.2010 has been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional court manifestly erred in law in holding that the Act is applicable to the shop in dispute. The finding of the revisional court on this aspect is based upon the misreading of the plaint as well as the notice which forms the basis of the suit. The shop in dispute has been assessed to house tax for the first time w.e.f. 1.4.1988 and as such it is outside the purview of the above Act. 6. The finding of the revisional court on this aspect is based upon the misreading of the plaint as well as the notice which forms the basis of the suit. The shop in dispute has been assessed to house tax for the first time w.e.f. 1.4.1988 and as such it is outside the purview of the above Act. 6. On the contrary, Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the first assessment relied upon by the petitioner as well as by the court of first instance does not relate to the shop in dispute and that in view of the statement of DW-3 Dinesh Kumar that he had been occupying the shop in dispute for about 8 and 9 years before it was given to the respondent clearly shows that the shop is an old construction on which the Act would be applicable. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner purchased land in dispute on which the above shop exists vide registered sale deed dated 30.3.1987 from his brother. The brother of the petitioner before transferring the said land to the petitioner had applied for sanction of the map for constructing 8 shops on the said land. The said map was sanctioned on 28.8.1985. Since at the time of above sale deed the land was vacant, it is obvious that the shops were constructed thereafter. 8. No doubt the constructions of the shop on the said land may not be strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan but the fact remains that the open piece of land was purchased in the year 1985 and therefore whatever constructions exists must have been raised subsequently. 9. The petitioner has brought on record municipal assessment for the period 1st April 1988 to 31st March 1994 pertaining to 8 shops numbered as 219/8 to 219/15 in the name and ownership of the petitioner Ramesh Chandra. In the said market area the petitioner has no other property or shop other than the 8 shops including the shop in dispute which he constructed over the land purchased in 1985. 10. Apart from the above assessment there is no other material on record which may show that the shop in dispute or as a matter of fact any of the 8 shops was assessed to tax earlier to 1.4.1988. 10. Apart from the above assessment there is no other material on record which may show that the shop in dispute or as a matter of fact any of the 8 shops was assessed to tax earlier to 1.4.1988. There is no evidence on record either to prove that the petitioner owns any other shop other than 8 shops which have been assessed to tax w.e.f. 1.4.1988. The said assessment clearly proves that 8 shops that belongs to the petitioner were assessed for the first time w.e.f. 1.4.1988. Therefore, the aforesaid assessment is in relation to the shops in dispute. The revisional court as such is not justified in holding that as the petitioner has not given the municipal number of the shop in dispute, the aforesaid assessment can be held to be in respect of it. 11. The petitioner in the plaint has clearly described the shop which is under tenancy of the petitioner as B-1. The notice on the basis of which the suit has been filed also describes the shop as B-1. 12. The respondent has contested the proceedings fully knowing that he is a tenant of shop B-1 and that the dispute relates to the said shop. Thus, there was no doubt in the mind of the respondent that the petitioner is seeking his eviction from the shop no. B-1 which was one of the 8 shops of the petitioners. The shops of the petitioners are all assessed to tax w.e.f. 1.4.1988. Therefore, the shop in dispute is also to be treated as one assessed to tax w.e.f.1.4.1988. 13. Even assuming that the shop in dispute was constructed earlier to 1.4.1988 and that it had remained under tenancy of one Dinesh Kumar for a period of 8 or 9 years, it is not sufficient to prove the date of completion of the constructions of the shop. According to explanation 1 to section 2 (2) of the Act the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported or is otherwise recorded by the local authority, in case of building subject to assessment date on which its first assessment comes into effect and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment the date on which it is actually occupied for the first time. 14. 14. In view of the above explanation, the date of occupation of the building is relevant, if the completion of the building is not reported or recorded by the local authority or if the building is not assessed to house tax. 15. In the instant case though there is nothing on record to show that the completion of the construction was ever reported or otherwise recorded by the local authority but the assessment on record proves that it was first assessed to tax w.e.f. 1.4.1988. In the said scenario, the actual occupation of the building does not have any relevance and the date of completion of the building shall be the date of its first assessment. 16. This apart, the statement of DW-3 is not worth reliable. The land on which the shops are situate was purchased by the petitioner as an open piece of land in the year 1985, meaning thereby that whatever constructions have been raised on it were subsequent to its purchase. 17. It may not be out of context to mention that in the series of decisions it has been held by the courts that for applying the provisions of the Act the date of first assessment is the most relevant criteria even though the building may have been let out earlier to the date of first assessment. 18. A reference in this regard may be had to 1992 (1) ARC 66 Smt. Damyanti Devi Vs. Yogendra Kumar Singh . 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the revisional court is in error in holding that the shop in dispute is an old construction which is covered by the Act. 20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.2010 is quashed and that of the court of first instance is restored and affirmed. 21. Since the Act is not applicable, respondent would not be entitle to avoid the decree of eviction on the ground of default under Section 20 (4) of the Act. 22. The writ petition is allowed.