G.P. Mathur, J.

1. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed by the Defendant against the judgment and decree dated 5-9-1991 of Special Judge, Meerut, by which the suit of the Plaintiff-Respondent has been decreed. Parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

2. Anand Prasad Garg, Plaintiff Respondent, filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against Ashok Gupta Defendant-applicant, on the ground that he was tenant in the Plaintiffs building described at the foot of the plaint at the rate of Rs. 950/ per month, that initially the premises comprised of a room which was demolished and a new construction was made in August, 1980, which was let out to the Defendant on September. 1, 1980; that initially the rent was Rs. 550 per month which was increased from time to time with the consent of the parties and the present rate of rent is Rs. 950/- per month; that the Defendant was in arrears of rent from 1-9-1985 to 31-7--1988 which he had failed to pay despite demands having been made; that the Plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the Defendant by means of a notice which was served on him on 17-8-88 and that the building being a new construction the provisions of U.P. No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable.

3. The suit was contested by the Defendant-tenant on the ground inter alia that the construction was very old and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the same, that he had paid advance rent and there was no arrear against him and that the suit was liable-to be dismissed.

4. Parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial court after examining the record and that the suit had been filed within ten years of the construction of the building and as such the same was out of the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; that the Defendant had not committed default in payment of rent inasmuch as he had deposited Rs. 60.000/- under Section 20(4) of the Act; that the rent of the building was settled at Rs. 950/- per month with effect from 1-2- 1985 and that in view of the fact that the tenancy of the Defendant had been terminated by the Plaintiff by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the suit for ejectment was liable to be decreed. On these findings the Plaintiffs suit was decreed and the Defendant was also held liable to pay Rs. 900/- and Rs. 100/- per month as damages from the date of notice till the date of delivery of physical possession.

5. I have heard Sarvasri Sudhir Chandra and Vivek Chaudhary for the applicant and Sarvasri K.M. Dayal and A.D. Prabhakar for the Respondent and have examined the record.

6. In a revision under Section 22 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act this Court cannot reappraise the evidence or reverse the findings of fact recorded by the trial court but can only examine as to whether the decree passed by the court below is in accordance with law.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the finding of the trial court that at the time when the suit was filed on 30-5-1989 the building was less than ten years old is erroneous inasmuch as the said finding is based upon misinterpretation of the Defendants plea in the written statement. It is submitted that the trial court has erred in arriving at the said finding only on the ground that the Defendant occupied the house for the first time on 1st February, 1980, when it was not his case that he was the first occupant of the house Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the trial court after consideration of the evidence on record has held that the building in occupation of the Defendant has been constructed in 1980, and, therefore, being finding of fact the same is not open to challenge in the present revision. He has also submitted that the Plaintiff had given a report regarding the completion of the construction to the municipal board on 2-9-1980, and therefore, the said date should be deemed to be the date of construction of the building.

8. Section 2(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed. Clause (a) of Explanation 1 to this Sub-section reads as follows:

(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 earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or 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;

...

In Om Prakash v. Dig Vijendra Pal 1982 SC 1230, [LQ/SC/1980/403] it has been held that the date of occupation would be taken to be the date of completion of the construction only when there is no report or record of the completion of the construction or no assessment thereof. In this case the admitted position was that the tenant occupied the shop on 16th June, 1967. but the first assessment took place on a subsequent, date, i.e., on 1-4-1968, It was held that the shop would be deemed to have been completed on 1-4-1968 and on this finding the building was held to be outside the purview of the Act.

9. The Plaintiff Anand Prasad Garg has stated in his statement that the building was completed in August, 1980, and its completion was reported to the municipal board on 2-9-1980. The Plaintiff has filed a copy of the letter sent by him to the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Meerut on 2-9-1980 which is Ex. 6 (paper No. 34-C) on the record of the case. This document bears the seal of Municipal Board, Meerut, and there is an endorsement to the effect that the same was received by some person in the office of the Municipal Board, Meerut, and also bears the date 2-9-1980 under the signature of the aforesaid person. The contents of the document are being reproduced below:

I am the owner of Kothi No. 178 westera Kuthchery Road, Meerut, Main Kothi No. 178 (ka) is my residential portion. At the back of my Kothi there was one small room kaown as out-house, which was numbered by the Municipal Board as 178 (Kha), which was demolished by me and a new building comprising of two rooms, box-room, verandah, toilets, baths and kitchen have been constructed on that portion. The construction of the above new building has been completed on 31st August, 1980. It is, therefore, requested that the above information is being reported to you for record of the Municipal Board.

In my opinion the document Ex. Ka 6 is a report regarding the completion of the building as contemplated by Sub-clause (a) of Ex. I to Section 2(2) of the Act, and. therefore, the building shall be deemed to have been completed on 2-9-1980. The trial court noticed this document but seems to have taken the view that in absence of any entry about the same in the municipal board record it cannot be taken to be the report regarding completion of the building and proceded to determine the age of the construction on the bask of the date of its actual occupation Sub-clause (a) of Exp. I does not require that there should also be any entry in the municipal board record regarding the completion report given by the landlord or the owner of the building. If there is a completion report regarding the construction of a building the same is enough to satisfy the requirements of Sub-clause (a) and the date on which the report is given would be the date of completion of the building. Since in the present case report was given on 2-9-1980 the construction of the building would be deemed to be completed on the said date and it was not ten years old when the suit was filed on 30-5-1989. Therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the building and decree for ejectment has been rightly passed against the applicant. It is well settled by series of decisions of Honble Supreme Court that if the building was outside the purview of the Act on the date of the institution of the suit the fact that the building became ten years old during" the pendency of litigation was wholly irrelevant Nand Kishorie v. Smt Samundari Devi : AIR 1987 SC 2284 [LQ/SC/1987/655] and Shiv Kumar v. Jawahar Lal 1988 (2) ARC 465 (SC).

10. The trial court has proceeded on the basis that the building was occupied for the first time on 1-2-1980 and on its basis has held that it was less than ten years old when the suit was filed, The contention of the learned Counsel is that this finding is erroneous and cannot be accepted. The Plaintiff had examined himself as a witness and has given statement on oath that the construction of the building was completed in 1980, He had also filed voluminous documentary evidence in support of his contention The finding of the court below is not based entirely on the statement of the Defendant but is also based upon appraisal of Plaintiffs oral and documentary evidence. Thus in my opinion it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the trial court that the building was occupied on 1-2-1980 suffers from any infirmity or illegality.

11. The revision is liable to be dismissed in both the circumstances whether the date of completion of its construction is held to be 2-9-1980 on the basis of report regarding its completion or it is held to be 1-2-1980 on the basis that it was occupied for the first time on the said date In either case the building would be outside the purview of the Act and the Defendant tenant cannot save his ejectment as his tenancy had been terminated by means of a valid notice which had been served upon him on 17-8-1988.

12. There is another aspect of the case which may be noticed here. The Defendant-applicant is working as Law Officer (Taxation) in Modi Rubbers and is a law graduate. A written agreement was executed by parties on stam paper which was signed by both the, Plaintiff and the Defendant. It was stated in para 1 of the agreement that the building was a new construction and its construction had been completed in August, 1980, and was outside the purview of the Rent Control Act. This agreement has been held to be inadmissible in evidence by the trial court as it was mentioned therein that the building has been let out for two years and the document was not registered. The Defendant tenant extended the agreement by making an endorsement thereon on three different occasions. Initially the tenancy was extended upto 30th June, 1983 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 700 per month from the initial Rs. 550 per month Second time the tenancy was extended upto 31st August. 1985, on 6-7 1983 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 800 per month. The third time tenancy was extended up to June, 1987, on 28-8-1985 and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 950 per month and in the case of payment of advance rent to Rs. 900 per month. The document is admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose, i.e., for any purpose other than that of creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing a right to immovable property The terra in the document that the construction of the building had been completed in August, 1980, will come within the expression "collateral purpose" and can be read in evidence The Defendant has himself signed this document on four different occasions I am exercising revisional jurisdiction which is a discretionary one Where a party has himself admitted that the building was a new construction and had been completed in August, 1980, I would not like to exercise my equitable jurisdiction in his favour if he later on turns round and takes a plea that the building is an old one I may clarify that I am fully satisfied that the revision is liable to be dismissed without taking into consideration the agreement dated 1-9 1980 referred to above which is paper No. 33-C on the record. The findings recorded in the earlier part of the judgment are sufficient to dispose of the case. Reference has been made to the agreement in order to show the conduct of the applicant.

13. In view of the discussions made above there is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs