ORDER : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. We are concerned with Shop No. 142/1, Mohalla Gajawali, Sarwat Road, Tehsil & District Muzaffarnagar of which the appellant is the landlord. 3. The case of the appellant is that the respondent– tenant had not paid rent for the period from 1st November, 1992 to 17th March, 1993. Accordingly, the appellant filed a suit for eviction of the respondent and prayed that rent along with water tax at the rate of 10% together with 9% interest during the pendency of the suit be paid to him. It was also prayed that possession of the shop be handed over to him. The appellant also prayed for pendente lite mesne profits and costs. 4. In the suit, two issues arose for consideration. The first issue was whether the appellant was a minor when the suit was filed and the second issue was whether the suit was maintainable in a Civil Court in view of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). 5. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, our attention has been drawn to the application filed by the respondent under Order 32, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') wherein it was stated that the appellant was a minor when he filed a suit and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable in the absence of a guardian not being appointed to take care of his interest. 6. The application was considered by the Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar who passed an order on 16th November, 1995 rejecting the application on the ground that the appellant was born on 23rd November, 1974 and the suit was filed on 9th April, 1993. Therefore, the appellant was more than 18 years of age when the suit was instituted. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge, the respondent preferred a Revision Petition which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, by an order dated 30th September, 1997. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the view taken by the Civil Judge with regard to the age of the appellant. 8. Notwithstanding the above, when the Civil Suit was taken up for consideration, the issue of the appellant's age was once again addressed at the time of final hearing. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the view taken by the Civil Judge with regard to the age of the appellant. 8. Notwithstanding the above, when the Civil Suit was taken up for consideration, the issue of the appellant's age was once again addressed at the time of final hearing. The Trial Court then held that the date of birth of the appellant was 23rd November, 1974 and that fact had been verified by his mother also. Apart from that the horoscope of the appellant was also on record and in view of the above, it was held that the appellant was not a minor when the suit was filed. 9. Against this finding of the Trial Court, the respondent preferred a Revision Petition before the Additional District Judge who considered the issue of the appellant's minority and rejected the contention raised by the respondent. The issue whether the appellant was a minor or not at the time of the institution of the suit was conclusively decided in favour of the appellant on four occasions by the Courts below. 10. The second issue that came up for consideration was the date of construction of the premises in question. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown to us a copy of the Sale Deed dated 21st April, 1980 which was exhibited before the Trial Court. The Sale Deed clearly mentions that there was no construction on the plot in question and that it is a vacant plot. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has also shown to us a copy of the notice received from the Tax Department of the Municipal Board, Muzaffarnagar, wherein it is mentioned that the date of construction for the purposes of House Tax is to be taken as 1st April, 1984. This date is clear on a perusal of Exhibit-6. The assessment list prepared by the City Board in Muzaffarnagar also indicates the same position as per the copy of the House Tax assessment register. 12. The respondent had taken an objection in the additional written statement filed by him categorically stating that in respect of another shop that was constructed simultaneously with the shop of the appellant by his brother Manoj Kumar it was held by the Additional District Judge at Muzaffarnagar by an order dated 4th February, 1997 that the shop was constructed in 1980. It was therefore contended that the date of construction of the appellant's shop must be taken as sometime in 1980. 13. The order passed by the Additional District Judge in the case of Manoj Kumar was the subject matter of Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 10317 of 1997 in the High Court of Allahabad. On a consideration of the matter, the High Court concluded that in fact the date of construction of Manoj Kumar's shop was to be taken as 1st April, 1984 since that was the date from which House Tax assessment was made on a five yearly basis. In view of this finding, it must be held that the shop of the appellant which was constructed simultaneously with Ashok Kumar's shop was also constructed on 1st April, 1984 on the basis of the House Tax assessment. 14. In Section 2 of the Act, it is provided that the provisions of the Act will not apply for ten years to a constructed building from the date on which the construction is completed. Explanation (1) to sub-section (2) provides 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 having jurisdiction. However, in the case of building subject to assessment, the construction of a building shall be the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the dates. 15. As noticed above, the assessment was with effect from 1st April, 1984 in respect of the property in question. Consequently, in terms of Explanation I to Section 2(2) of the Act, the date of construction of the property in dispute is required to be taken as 1st April, 1984. 16. We are fortified in the view taken with reference to a judgment of this Court in Saleem v. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 242 . In paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision, it is mentioned that a perusal of Explanation I as above, makes it abundantly clear that the date of occupation would be taken to the date of completion of the construction only when there is no report or record of completion of the construction or no assessment thereof. In paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision, it is mentioned that a perusal of Explanation I as above, makes it abundantly clear that the date of occupation would be taken to the date of completion of the construction only when there is no report or record of completion of the construction or no assessment thereof. However, if there is any assessment, the date of the first assessment will be the date of completion of the construction. 17. Insofar as the present appeal is concerned, there is, therefore, no doubt that the date of construction is required to be taken as 1st April, 1984. In that view of the matter, since the suit was instituted by the appellant on 8th April, 1993, the provisions of the Act would not apply insofar as the premises in dispute are concerned. 18. The High Court has unfortunately ignored the provisions of Explanation I to Section 2(2) of the Act and has also not referred to the decision rendered by this Court in Saleem (supra). In our opinion the High Court came to an erroneous conclusion, that the date of first assessment would be 1st April, 1979, since the construction was said to have been completed sometime in April, 1983. The High Court has also overlooked the decision rendered in the case of Manoj Kumar where it has been categorically stated that all the shops including the shop in question were constructed simultaneously and would be deemed to be constructed on 1st April, 1984. 19. In our opinion, the High Court was also in error in going into the question of the appellant's date of birth. There is no doubt that the matter was looked into four occasions by the Courts below and they all concluded that the appellant was more than 18 years of age on the date of filing the suit. Therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to go into the matter once again. 20. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the High Court on 20th November, 2012 in Writ-A No. 5965 of 2003 is set aside. The decree passed by the Trial Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in SCC Case No. 21/93 is restored. 21. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. 22. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent seeks some time to vacate the premises. 23. The decree passed by the Trial Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in SCC Case No. 21/93 is restored. 21. The appeal is allowed on the above terms. 22. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent seeks some time to vacate the premises. 23. Six months' time from today is granted to the respondent to vacate the premises subject to filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks and also paying arrears of rent and mesne profits as claimed by the appellant.