IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 64 of 2007 Harvinder Singh S/o Sri Mohan Singh ..……… Revisionist Versus Bhagwant Singh and another ……… Respondents. Mr. Gopal Krishan, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Gopal Krishan, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri P.C. Maulekhi, the learned counsel for the respondents. The applicant is the landlord and filed a suit for eviction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. A specific plea was taken in the plaint that the shop, in question, was constructed in the year 1988-89 and that the house tax was assessed for the first time in the year 1993-94 and, therefore, the shop, in question, is outside the purview of the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Court below, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the house tax was assessed @ Rs. 360/- p.a. by the Nagar Palika for the first time in the year 1978-79 with regard to one big hall which was being used as a workshop and a tin shed. The Court below also found through documents that house tax was being assessed in the year 1983-84 and again in the year 1988-89 and, therefore, concluded in view of the provision of Section 2 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Act of 1972 was applicable and, therefore, dismissed the suit. The applicant, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the shop, in question, was leased out to the applicant in the year 1992- 93 after an additional shop was constructed by the applicant, which map was sanctioned in the year 1888-89 and, therefore, the applicability of the Act could only come into existence if 1988-89 is counted as the first date of assessment. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the provision of Section 2 (2) Explanation (1) (c) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 which contemplates that where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of the completion of the said addition. Having perused this provision, the Court is of the opinion that necessary details are lacking in the pleadings as well as in the evidence that was brought before the court below. There is nothing to indicate that the addition which was carried out by the landlord in the year 1988-89, was a substantial addition which made the existing building a minor portion of the entire building. On the other had, the plea, which is now being placed forward is, that one extra room was added which was let out as a shop to the opposite parties. Addition of one room cannot become a substantial addition which would take the building out of the purview of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Court below. The revision petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 21.06.2010 Shiv