HAZARI LAL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court and the point raised relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the U. P. Control cf Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. This Act received the assent of the Governor General on 28-2-1947, under Section 76 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and was published in the United Provinces Government Gazette, Extraordinary, on the 1st of March, 1947. Section 1 (3) of this Act provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 1-10-1946.

(2.) On 10-5-1947, a suit was filed for ejectment cf the defendant from a shop situate in the town of Raya. It is the common case of the parties that at the time when the suit was filed the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act had not been extended, by notification of the State Government, to apply to the town of Raya. In view of that admission, it is not necessary to deal with the various amendments made to the original Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act at length but we might quote the subsection as it originally stood and indicate how it was later amended. The original Sub-section (2) to Section 1 of the Act was as follows: " 1(2) : It extends to the whole of the United Provinces and applies to the municipal areas, cantonment areas and to every notified area contiguous to such municipal area situated in these provinces and to accommodation situated within one mile of the boundaries of any such municipal area, cantonment area, and notified area, and to such other areas as the Provincial Government may, from time to time, notify in the official Gazette in this behalf;....." This sub-section was amended by the Amending Act 44 of 1948 and it was divided into two sub-sections, Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (2-A). This was later again amended by a number of ordinances and notifications and the latest amendment is by Act No. 17 of 1951. The two sub-sections now read as follows:

(3.) The suit was contested on various grounds and one of the grounds, we are informed by learned counsel, was that the notice for ejectment was defective.