“I have gone through the judgements cited by learned counsel for the parties. There is no quarrel with the law. As per the law as discussed above it is very clear that if the date of first assessment is available then that is the final date for the purpose of deciding the applicability of the Act. However, the other dates, regarding construction is to be seen when the completion was reported or when there is no report record or assessment it is the date of actual occupation for the first time. In the present case only documentary evidence is the sanction of map by the prescribed authority on 8.9.1996. All other assertions are supported by oral evidence only. The pleading in the written statement is only with regard to the occupancy of the shop in question since 1988 and without any reference to any specific date. Other assertion is that prior to this occupation by the present tenant-defendant, the same was in occupation of one cycle mechanic without giving any name, date or duration of his occupation, in other words, no evidence is support of this assertion was given by the tenant-defendant, thus, he failed to discharge his burden of proof to prove this assertion. Therefore, once in the documentary evidence of the date of sanction of map of the shop in question is available, any other oral assertion was rightly rejected by the courts below in absence of any other supporting evidence.”
