Judgment Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The impregnability of the judgment and order dated 9.4.2008, rendered by learned Second Additional District Judge, Dehradun in S.C.C. Suit No.12 of 1998, Hemraj Sahni v. Santosh Kumar, is under challenge before this Court. By the said judgment, the suit of the landlord Hemraj Sahni was decreed against the tenant Santosh Kumar, wherein he is the tenant of a shop and carrying his business of various electrical repairing. Learned court below has held that the property, in question, is out of the purview of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘the Act’), hence the tenant is liable to be evicted only on the grounds of arrears of rent due on him. 2. Put briefly, the Suit was filed way back on 17.6.1998 but the learned court below dismissed the same on 27.9.2005, holding the applicability of the Act in affirmation. So, it was found that the landlord could have instituted a Suit only on the specified grounds, as has been envisaged under Section 20 of the Act. Thereagainst, Civil Revision No.114 of 2005 was preferred by the landlord which was allowed by another Judge of this Court on 9.4.2007 with the finding that no specific evidence was available on record disclosing as to when this building was constructed, whether it was before or after the date 26.4.1985. 3. It would be relevant to mention here that if the said shop was constructed on or before 26.4.1985 then the only course available to the landlord for evicting the tenant was to institute a Suit for eviction under the Act. At the same time, if the shop was constructed after the aforementioned date, then the only course available for the landlord is to institute a Suit for the arrears of rent. 4. Another Judge of the Court remanded the matter to the court below directing it to render an opportunity to both the parties for adducing their evidence in this regard and then to decide the matter afresh. Accordingly, both the parties were accorded opportunity, as directed by this Court and the Suit was decided in favour of the landlord vide judgment dated 9.4.2008, which is under challenge in this revision. 5. Accordingly, both the parties were accorded opportunity, as directed by this Court and the Suit was decided in favour of the landlord vide judgment dated 9.4.2008, which is under challenge in this revision. 5. Before appreciating the findings recorded by the court below, it would be relevant to mention certain facts that a vast portion of land was purchased by Mr. Sahni on 4.8.1970 which was awarded Municipal No.100 by the Local Authority. He got the building plan sanctioned in respect of the said land for setting up a Rubber Plant in the name of M/s H.R. Rubber Industries as sole proprietor thereof but did not set up the proposed Plant. Instead, he constructed -12 shops thereon. As per the averments of the landlord, these shops were constructed in the year 1987 and were assessed to tax by the Municipal Board, Rishikesh for the first time in the year 1987. After assessment, these shops were also allotted Municipal No.100. The main controversy is whether the construction thereof was completed on or before 26.4.1985 or it was in the year 1987, as averred by the landlord. 6. In the opinion of the Court, the burden of proof is upon the landlord to prove his averments to the effect that the building was constructed in the year 1987 only and assessed by the Municipal Board in that very year and thus, it was out of purview of the Act. 7. Explanation (I) appended to Section 2(2) of the Act contemplates 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 have jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, …………………. 8. The landlord Mr. Sahni, by way of filing the Municipal Assessments from 1977 to 1982; 1982 to 1987; 1987 to 1992 and further from 1992 to 1997, has tried to show that till 1987, there were one or two shops standing on the land purchased by him whereas the remaining 12 shops were constructed in the year 1987. There is no other reliable evidence to prove such averment and in the opinion of this Court, it is difficult to believe the version of the plaintiff Mr. There is no other reliable evidence to prove such averment and in the opinion of this Court, it is difficult to believe the version of the plaintiff Mr. Sahni because even in the Assessment 1982-1987, there is a mention of tenancy of Mr. R.C. Sood and Mr. Rajeev Sood showing them as tenants of two rooms and one shop. Although, in the assessment of 1987 to 1992, six more shops have been shown being occupied by different other tenants but this Court looks the controversy, in question, from a different angle for the reason that the provisions of the Act is basically meant for the protection of tenant from such a big landlords whose motive is only to make profit hunting, either by securing the eviction of one shop and then to let it out again for higher rental value or by selling the same for a very high consideration after such vacation. 9. The Legislature, while enacting such provision, as aforementioned, perhaps unwittingly, has not contemplated the mischievous plan of such landlords to get the shops constructed but not making them subject to assessment in the Municipality and applying for assessment of building or shops, as the case may be, only after the specified date viz. 26.4.1985. Suppose, an affluent person constructs a building few days or weeks or months or an year or two, earlier than 26.4.1985, and does not apply to the competent authority for making assessment of such building till passing of the specified date and get it assessed only after the specified date just to make the building out of the purview of applicability of the Act, then it is the pious duty of the Court to analyse and appreciate the oral testimony of the tenant in this regard. There may be cases, as stated above, when the building constructed by a landlord was subject of assessment but by the mischievous plan of the landlord, as highlighted above, was not made subject to assessment because the building can be subject to assessment only when the application is moved by the Landlord in the competent office. It is a matter of general observation that nowhere the Municipality or its competent persons takes notice of bringing over such buildings in their jurisdiction subject to assessment suo moto in the absence of any application moved by the said landlord. It is a matter of general observation that nowhere the Municipality or its competent persons takes notice of bringing over such buildings in their jurisdiction subject to assessment suo moto in the absence of any application moved by the said landlord. In such cases, it is the pious duty of the higher Courts to fill up the lacuna/lapse left by the Legislature, though unwittingly, but the same fortifies the profit hunting plan of the landlord to keep his building out of the purview of the Act, which has never been the object and reason wherefor the Act was enacted by the Legislature. 10. The tenant Mr. Santosh Kumar Chauhan, an ordinary shopkeeper, inasmuch as the electrical repairing worker, has deposed in so many words in his evidence before the Court on 3.1.2008 that eversince 1984, he is in occupation of this shop and doing the work as afore-stated. He has further deposed that since 1984 till 2.9.1987, the landlord though received the rent but did not issue any rent receipt to him and it was only on 2.9.1987 when the said agreement was written between them and then only the landlord used to issue the rent receipts. 11. It is also pertinent to mention that Mr. Sahni himself had instituted a parallel suit under Section 20 of the Act against Mr. Santosh Kumar Chauhan seeking his eviction on 27.5.1997 stating therein that he (Mr. Chauhan) was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Mr. Sahni brought that Suit showing his bona fide need for his own use but by the wrong drafting in paragraph no.5 of that Suit, he averred that the property, in question, was constructed after 1987, and so, the provisions of the Act were not applicable. This way, the P.A. Case No.3 of 1997 brought by Mr. Sahni was self-contradictory and hence it was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rishikesh, Dehradun on 19.12.2003. 12. The claim of the plaintiff is refutable by yet another paper filed by the tenant as Annexure No.12/2 which is the information supplied by the Executive Engineer under the Right to Information Act on 15.3.2008 disclosing that in the property no.100, owned by Hemraj Sahni, the electricity connection was provided on 1.9.1973. It also reflects the impression that a person like Mr. It also reflects the impression that a person like Mr. Sahni, who had purchased a vast piece of land with a sanction of an elaborate plan thereon, would not have left the road- facing portion of the same vacant inasmuch as till 1987 viz. for 17 years without any utility and would construct the shops thereon only after 17 years whereas taking electricity connection in the year 1972 only for a little portion of his house at one of the corners of such vast plot. 13. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, this Court feels that the shops had been constructed on the said land on or before 26.4.1985 but the same were not made subject to assessment by Mr. Sahni, all the same, shops owned and constructed by him were the subject of assessment. So, I find force in this revision. It is hereby allowed. The judgment and order under challenge is hereby set aside. It is hereby made clear that if the landlord Mr. Sahni wants to evict the tenant Mr. Santosh Kumar Chauhan, then he has no other option but to take recourse of the suitable provisions under the Act only. However, this Court directs that till any action is taken by the landlord, the tenant will continue to make payment of use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, excluding the electricity and other charges whatsoever, as directed by this Court vide order dated 19.6.2008. 14. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be transmitted to the court concerned.