MOHD ZAKARIYA Vs. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in this writ petition is as to whether a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment from a public building, filed prior to 18-5-1983, will be governed by Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act or will be governed by the general law. the petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 1-11-1988, passed in revision by VIIth Additional District Judge, Hardoi, and dated 4-4-1987 passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Hardoi, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment filed against opposite parties no. 3 to 5. It was averred that the petitioner who is the landlord of the premises in dispute let out a house to Union of India through the Secretary Post and Telegraphs, Ministry of Communication and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hardoi Region, Hardoi and the Post Master, Branch Post Office, Ganga Rampur Chauraha, Kasba and Pargana Mallawan, Tehsil Bilgram, district Hardoi i.e. opposite parties no. 3 to 5 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month. THE petitioner filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the aforesaid tenants on 17/18th March, 1983 after giving, them a notice under Section 80 CPC and a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy as they failed to remit the rent for the period commencing from 1-3-1982 to 31-12-1982 to the petitioner inspite of several demands being made by him.

(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) was not applicable over the premises indispute because the aforesaid suit was instituted by the petitioner on 17-3-1983 and at that time the premises indispute was exempted from the operation of the Act. The premises in dispute came under 'Public Building', defined under Section 3 of the Act, and by means of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act such building were exempted from the operation of the Act. Hence the tenancy of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 was determined by means of notice under Section 106,of the Transfer of Property Act and the suit was filed.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in, Punjab National Banki (supra), reference before the Bench was not as to whether the amendment under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was retrospective in nature or not. Though the Full Bench had made its observation and has given its opinion in regard to this amendment but it was only obiter dictum and not ratio decidendi in the matter in issue and the courts below failed to consider the controversy and erred in dismissing the suit as well as the revision of the petitioner.