Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) 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.;