SIBTE HASAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PTHIS is a petition by the tenant in proceedings initiated under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (U. P. Act No. III of 1947) - hereinafter referred to as the Old Act. Opposite party No. 3 Abdul Ghafoor is the landlord of the premises in dispute and the petitioner happened to be tenant thereof. Op posite Party No. 3 filed an application under Section 3 of the Old Act for permission to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises demised to him in which he was carrying on business in medicines in the Unani Form. The Rent Control and Evic tion Officer rejected the application of the landlord on the ground that his need was not genuine and bona fide. He filed a revision against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under S. 3 (2) of the Old Act. While the revision was pending before the Commissioner, U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act of 1972 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - came into force. As a result of the coming into force of this Act, by rea son of Section 43 sub-section (2) clause (m) thereof, the revision stood transferred to the Additional District Judge. The learned Ad ditional District Judge, after making a com parison of the needs of the landlord and the petitioner-tenant, came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was genuine and bona fide and was superior to that of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge, in the result, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer and allowed the landlord's ap plication. The learned Judge in the operative part of the order observed that the applica tion filed by the landlord under Section 3 of the Old Act which would be deemed to be one under Section 21 of the Act stood allow ed. He allowed three months' time to the petitioner to make alternative arrangements and vacate the premises in question. It was directed that the order allowing the applica tion would become effective after three months from the date thereof and the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the pre mises in question by evicting the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the revision was decided by the learned Additional District Judge after the coming into force of the Act, though the proceedings had initially been started under Section 3 of the Old Act, he was bound to give effect to the substantive provisions of the new Act governing the re lationship between the landlord and tenant. It was urged that the provisions of Section 21 of the Act should have been taken into ac count by the. learned Additional District Judge while deciding the revision and he should have awarded compensation to the petitioner as required by the second proviso of Sec tion 21 (1). There is, in our opinion, no force in this contention. The proceedings were started when the Old Act was operative and effective. If the Act had come into force while the application was pending before the District Magistrate, undoubtedly, by reason of Section 43 (2) (a) of the Act, it would have stood transferred to the prescribed authority having jurisdiction, would have been deemed to be an application for proceedings under Section 21 of the Act and would have been required to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act. No such situa tion, however, arose since the original pro ceedings had already been concluded before the District Magistrate before the date when the Act came into force. Clause (m) of sub section (2) of S. 43 of the Act merely pro vides that the forum of the revision would stand altered from that of the Commissioner to that of the District Judge. The mere fact that the revision stood transferred by opera tion of law did not result in any alteration in the power that is required to be exercised by the District Judge under S. 43 (2) (m) of the Act. There are weighty reasons indicating that a revision transferred to the District Judge under Section 43 (2) (m) of the Act arising out of proceedings under Section 3 of the Old Act must be decided on considera tions only relevant to the Old Act.

(3.) IT was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge had not pro perly considered the relative claims of the parties. The submission raises a question of fact which has been decided by two autho rities below. It involves no question of jurisdiction.