SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Promod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Abu Bakht, learned, learned counsel for the defendanttenant/revisionist and Sri Bipin Lal Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintifflandlord/respondent.
(2.) The relief sought in this revision is that the judgment dated 26.03.2014 in SCC Suit No.9 of 2007 (Rohit Khosala and others v. Rajeev Kumar alias Happi) passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Additional District judge, Court No.1, Muzaffarnagar, may be set aside.
(3.) Submission of Sri P. K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate is that as per provision of Section 2(2) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the period of construction could be established only by documentary evidences regarding completion of the construction as reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in case of building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect. He submits that since the legislature itself has provided for evidences to prove the date of construction, therefore, it can be proved in the manner as provided by the Statute and not otherwise. In support of the submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Saroop Rai v. Smt. Lilawati 1980 ARC 466 SC (para 10) in which it has been held that whenever the new building is completed, a report has statutorily to be made and on a completion survey and certificate, occupation is ordinarily permitted and these records must also be available in the office of the local authority. The statute makes it clear that reliance upon the municipal records, rather than on the lips of witness is indicated to determine the date of completion and the nature of the construction. This statutory guideline cannot be overlooked.;