U P POWER CORPORATION U P AT LUCKNOW THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TRANSMISSION DIVISION-II ALLAHABAD Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Two objections have been raised to the orders passed under section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, whereby the authorities under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 have enhanced the rent of premises in question to Rs. 6,796/- from the first day of the month of tenancy following the date of application i.e. 1st February, 1992. The appeal filed by the UP. Power Corporation has also been dismissed.

(2.) First ground raised is that in view of amendments made in U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, premises went out to the provisions of said Rent Control Act as the rent was Rs. 2100/- on the date amendments were incorporated. The application under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was liable to be rejected.

(3.) This objection of the petitioner has been turned down with reference to the judgments of the High Court in the case of Champa Devi and another v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer I, Allahabad and another, 2002 46 AllLR 430, wherein it has been held that pending application under Rent Control Act shall not be adversely affected because of amendments enforced by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995.