Satish Chandra, J.:— By an order dated April 15, 1976 I had remitted the following issue for a finding:—
“On what date was the construction of the accommodation in the occupation of the defendant completed within meaning of Section 2(2) of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972?”
2. The trial court has returned a finding that the construction of the premises in suit was completed before April 1, 1966.
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite-party has filed an objection which is based on construction of Explanation to Section 2(2) aforesaid. The Explanation reads as follows:—
“Explanation:—For the purposes of this sub-section:—
(a) 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, and in the case of a building subject to assessment the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different the earlier of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record of assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time:
Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately be the landlord and one or more tenants or by different tenants;
4. It will be seen that the date of actual occupation for the first time becomes relevant ‘in the absence of any such report, record or assessment’. In my opinion on the words ‘report, record or assessment’ are disjunctive and in the context the provision should be read that ‘in the absence of a report or record or assessment’ the date of first occupation will be relevant. The reason is that in the absence of any report or record by the local authority, the assessment to tax will be problem. It may come about after several years defending on the knowledge of the local authority of the newly made construction. In such an event the completion of the construction could not be known reliably and the date of its first occupation becomes relevant. In the present case the newly constructed rooms were let out to the defendant in April, 1966 though the assessment was for the first time made in 1968. The objections are accordingly rejected.
5. The question of applicability of the Act No. 13 of 1972 was raised for the first time in this court. On the finding the building in dispute will come under the operation of the Act in April, 1976. Learned counsel for the defendant has stated that he made an application for the grant of benefit of Section 39 of the Act on February 27, 1976 and that he made the requisite deposit on March 12, 1976. The application and the deposit were well within time. The question whether the provisions of Section 39 of the Act apply to the building in dispute or not will have to be gone into by the trial court.
6. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The decree for ejectment is set aside. The trial court will now adjudicate upon the application under Section 39 of Act No. 13 of 1972 and pass orders in accordance with law. The findings already recorded in the judgment dated May 5, 1975 are affirmed will not be re-opened. The parties will bear their own costs.