JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The application has been filed for the release of the shop which is in tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner admits that he was inducted as tenant in the premises in question in the year 1984. During the pendency of the appeal certain municipal assessments extract were filed by the petitioner taking the plea that the Rent Control Act is not applicable in view of Second Proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On the basis of the documents filed with the affidavit 22-Ga, submission of the petitioner is that the building in question has been assessed for the first time in the year 2008 and hence is exempted from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The date of commencement of the tenancy is not disputed which is prior to cut off date provided under second proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 2 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the applicability of the proviso in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, from the document appended i.e. affidavit 22-Ga, it cannot be assumed that this is the first assessment of the building in question. 4. However surprisingly enough the appellate Court, despite having admitted these documents, has not given consideration to this plea in its order dated 17.10.2015. There is not even a whisper in the entire judgement regarding the plea of first assessment of the building in question and the applicability of the proviso which requires leading of evidence and appreciation by the lower Appellate Court. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that judgment and order dated 17.10.2015 cannot be sustained. The matter is remanded back to the lower Appellate Court to consider the documents filed by the petitioner and record a finding on this issue. 6. The question of bona fide need and comparative hardship of the parties shall also be considered afresh after dealing with the issue of applicability of the Act by the lower Appellate Court. An independent finding shall be recorded without being influenced by the observations made herein above. 7. 6. The question of bona fide need and comparative hardship of the parties shall also be considered afresh after dealing with the issue of applicability of the Act by the lower Appellate Court. An independent finding shall be recorded without being influenced by the observations made herein above. 7. The lower Appellate Court shall make all endeavour to decide the matter at the earliest preferably within three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.