JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 4.10.2016 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut and its decree dated 17.10.2016. 3. The suit had been filed by the respondent regarding a shop for arrears of rent, damages and eviction upon termination of the tenancy by means of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the building was an old one and that the Rent Control Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) was applicable thereto. It has been admitted by the plaintiff in his oral testimony that the first assessment of the building was done in the year 1976. The court below has wrongly held that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (herein after referred to as the 'Act, 1972') does not apply only on the ground that the accommodation in question had been occupied by the revisionist in the year 1992 and, therefore, it was beyond the purview of the Act, 1972. He submits that the property was a factory shed. The shop is only a minor part of this building and, therefore, in view of Section 2 (2), Explanation-I (c), it was only a minor part of the building and, therefore, could not be termed a new building. The view taken to the contrary is erroneous. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the revisionist and perused the record, which reveals that a factory shed had been replaced by shops, one of which is in dispute in the instant revision. 6. It is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that no assessment order was filed by the parties. The entire case of the revisionist is based upon the oral testimony of the plaintiff wherein he has admitted that the first assessment of the property was done in the year 1976. 7. However, it is clear from the record that the factory shed was converted into three shops but no fresh assessment appears to have been made. At least, none is available on record. 8. 7. However, it is clear from the record that the factory shed was converted into three shops but no fresh assessment appears to have been made. At least, none is available on record. 8. The court below relying upon the statement of the revisionist himself, wherein, he has admitted that he was the first tenant of the shop in question having entered into the possession in the year 1992, held that the building did not come within the purview of UP Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. In my considered opinion, the Explanation I-A to Section 2 (2) is relevant for the purposes of the case. This explanation among other things provides that in the absence of any report, record or assessment, the date on which, the accommodation was actually occupied, would be deemed to the date on which the construction of the building was completed. 10. As already noticed herein above, no report, record or assessment order is available on record and, therefore, the court below has rightly relied upon the Explanation I-A and has held that the building was a new one and did not fall within the purview of the Act, 1972 as the revisionist has admitted that he was the first tenant, having occupied the same in the year 1992. 11. The aforesaid finding, in my considered opinion, cannot be faulted with. 12. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that shop in question was a minor addition to an existing factory shed and, therefore, the first assessment, made in the year 1976, as admitted by the land-lord, would govern the building and, therefore, it would fall within the purview of the Act, 1972. 13. From the pleadings of the parties and the impugned order, it emerges that in the year 1976, the first assessment was of a factory shed. This has been replaced by three shops. Therefore, the shops in question cannot be said to be a minor addition to an existing building and for this reason, reliance by counsel for the revisionist, upon Explanation 1-C and Section 2 (2) of the Act, is, in my considered opinion, misplaced. 14. No other point has been pressed. 15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order warrants no interference. 16. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.