SATYA PRAKASH Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for hearing, it was brought to my notice that the Appellants had sought the benefit of Section 39 read with Section 40 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), by an application dated 9th August, 1972. On the said application, Mr. Justice Hari Swarup passed the following orders:

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, Shri P.C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Respondent, contended that the Appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Section 39 read with Section 40 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the instant appeal was not pending on the date of the common -cement of the said U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and, therefore, the benefit of Section 39 read with Section 40 of the Act could not be extended to the Appellants. It may be mentioned here that the lower appellate court decided the appeal pending before it on 10th July, 1972 and this second appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate court was filed in this Court on 9th August, 1972. It is well known that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force on 15th July, 1972. Shri Gupta's contention is that as the instant appeal was not pending on 15th July, 1972 (having been filed as stated above on 9th August, 1972), therefore the benefit of the said provisions should not be made available to the Appellants.

(3.) SHRI Gupta's basic objection, however, has to be considered, namely, that the instant appeal was not pending on the date when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force i.e. on 15th July, 1972. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Manna Lal v. Mst. Chhotka Bibi, 1964 AWR 334 (F.B.). He also placed reliance on Saheb Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1969 ALJ 177 and Sheo Achal Mishra v. Ram Bali Mishra, 1971 AWR 665.