JAGDISHWAR SAHAI Vs. SURJAN SINGH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit giving rise to the present revision was instituted on 1-8-1972 for eviction of the defendant applicant on the strength of permission obtained by the plaintiff under S. 3 of the U. P. Act No. III of 1947 and also on the ground that he had committed default in payment of rent in spite of a notice of demand. A decree for arrears of rent and pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month was also claimed. THE trial Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the defendant was in arrears of rent when the notice of demand was served on him. THE suit for ejectment, however, was decreed on the basis of the permission under S. 3 of Act No. III of 1947. Pendente lite and future mesne profits was decreed at Rs. 40/- per month. In the revision before the learned District Judge the decree of the trial Court for eviction of the defendant was challenged only on the ground that the suit for ejectment instituted on 1-8-1972 on the strength of the permission under S. 3 of Act No. III of 1947 was incompetent on account of the bar created by Sec. 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). THE revision has been placed before us for decision as the learned Chief Justice while hearing the revision felt that "an authoritative decision by a Division Bench would subserve the public interest."

(2.) IT is not disputed that S. 20 of the Act by itself would bar a suit. However, S. 43 (2) (r) provided that notwithstanding the repeal of Act No. III of 1947 "any suit for the eviction of a tenant instituted with the permission referred to in S. 3 of the old Act or any proceeding arising out of such suit, pending immediately before the commencement of this Act, may be continued and concluded as if this Act had not been passed, and like-wise, any suit for eviction with such permission referred to in Cl. (i), Cl. (1). Cl. (m) or Cl. (o) may be instituted after the commencement of this Act." The Act came into force on July 15, 1972. IT is obvious that a suit for the eviction of the tenant on the strength of the permission granted under S. 3 of the old Act would have to be continued and concluded as if the new Act had not come into force, if the suit was pending on the date of enforcement of the Act. Like-wise a suit for eviction with such permission referred to in Cl. (i), Cl. (1), Cl. (m) or Cl. (o) could be instituted after the commencement of the new Act. In all other cases the suit would be barred under S. 20. Certain amendments in the Act were introduced by the U. P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 (Act No. 37 of 1972). By S. 8 of the aforesaid Act Cl. (r) of S. 43 (2) was amended and the portion beginning with the words "and like-wise" and ending with the words "after the commencement of this Act" were omitted. Again, the State Legislature by S. 7 of the U. P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 (Act No. 19 of 1973) amended Cl. (r) by substituting for the words "the commencement of this Act" the words and figures "the commencement of the Utter Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972". In the enforcement clause of Act No. 19 of 1973 it was provided that S. 7 shall be deemed to have come into force on 20th day of Sept. 1972. As a result of these amendments Cl. (r) reads as follows:- "any suit for the eviction of a tenant instituted with the permission referred to in S. 3 of the old Act or any proceeding arising out of such suit, pending immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, (U. P. Act 37 of 1972) may be continued and concluded as if this Act had not been passed." IT is thus obvious that whereas the original S. 43 (2) (r) applied to suits on the basis of permission pending on July 15, 1972, under the amended provision it became applicable to such suits pending on 20th Sept. 1972 and such suits have to be continued and concluded as if this Act had not been passed i. e. the bar of S. 20 would not be applicable to such suits.