KAMATA Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 26 -5 -1998 and 4 -4 -1997, passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, Annexures -III and I to the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that the Respondent No. 3 in the present petition is admittedly a public charitable trust, who is said to be the owner of the property and the petitioner claims himself to be the tenant thereof. In the year 1991 a notice was sent to the petitioner for eviction from the property in dispute, whereupon the petitioner filed a suit under Section 20 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Respondent No. 3 also filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner -tenant in the year 1991 on the ground of arrears of rent. After serving the notice under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, during the pendency of the suit U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been amended to the effect that the provisions of the Act No. XIII of 1972 as amended by the amendment of 1995, will not apply to the property owned by the public charitable trust. Before the trial Court the question was argued as to whether amended Act of 1995 will apply to the suit of 1991, which was pending when the aforesaid amendment came into force. The trial Court has relied upon by the decision reported in 1996 (1) ARC 348, Punjab National Bank v. Dr. Narendra Nath Azad, wherein this Court has held that the amended provision, as amended by the Act of 1995 will apply to the pending cases also. The decision reported in 1996 (1) ARC 348, stood overruled with a Division Bench decision by this Court reported in 2001 (1) AWC 673, Smt. Champa Devi and another v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer (1st), Allahabad and another, which is based on the law declared by the apex Court in the case of M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. M/s. Amritlal and Co. and another, reported in JT 2001 (7) SC 477. According to the aforesaid two decisions, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as amended by U.P. Act of 1995, is prospective in nature and not retrospective, therefore the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as amended by U.P. Act of 1995 will not apply to the pending suits on the date when U.P. Act of 1995 came into force. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Courts below that since the amended provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is retrospective, the petitioner is liable to be evicted by simple service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982. Needless to say that in view of what has been stated above, the view taken by the prescribed authority as well as the revisional authority suffers from the manifest error of law and deserves to be set aside. The order dated 26 -5 -1998 passed by the Revisional Court. Annexure - III to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court to decide the case taking in view that U.P. Act of 1995 to which U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable before the pending proceedings, including the present suit. Since the matter is fairly old, the Revisional Court is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months' from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Revisional Court.