SHUSHMA GIRI Vs. NINTH ADDL DIST JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Shushma Giri, petitioner No. 1 was occupying house No. 175/191, Allenganj, Allahabad, as a tenant on the basis of an order of allotment passed in her favour in the year 1958. An application was made by Ram Chandra Gupta, respondent No. 2, who is the landlord of the said house, for release of the house under S. 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that SMT. Shushma Giri had left it and consequently it was available for being released in his favour. This application was opposed by Jagannath Bharti, since deceased, father of petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3, inter alia on the ground that he was entitled to the benefit of S. 14 of the Act inasmuch as he had been occupying the house from before the commencement of the Act with the consent of the then landlord. This plea found favour with the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he by his order dated December, 22, 1975, rejected the application for release made by respondent No. 2. Against that order an appeal was filed before the District Judge by respondent No. 2 under S. 18 of the Act. The appeal was transferred to the 9th Additional District Judge, Allahabad. Before the appeal could be disposed of the Act was amended by U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976). By virtue of the Amending Act, S. 18 of the principal Act was substituted. Section 18 as substituted inter alia provides that no appeal shall lie from any order under S. 16 or S. 19 whether made before or after the commencement of this section, but any person aggrieved by a final order under any of the said sections may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer a revision to the District Judge on any one or more of the grounds mentioned therein. After the commencement of the aforesaid Amending Act the petitioners instituted this writ petition with a prayer to direct the 9th Additional District Judge not to proceed with the revision on the ground that the power to hear revision under S. 18 could be exercised only by the District Judge and not by an Additional District Judge.

(2.) IN support of the aforesaid plea reliance has been placed on S. 18 of the Act as it stood before its amendment by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 and on S. 10 of the said Act. Under S. 18 of the Act as it stood before its being amended by U. P. Act. No. 28 of 1976, an appeal lay to the District Judge. The provisions of S. 10 were, however, made applicable mutatis mutandis to an appeal filed under S. 18. Section 10 of the Act provides that it is open to the District Judge to either dispose of the appeal himself or assign it for disposal to any Additional District Judge under his administrative control. Emphasis has been laid on the fact that under S. 18 of the Act as it stands after its amendment by U. P. Act 28 of 1976, the provisions of S. 10 have not been made applicable to a revision filed under S. 18. Consequently the revision has to be heard by the District Judge and not by any Additional District Judge. IN our opinion there is no substance in this submission.

(3.) WE accordingly find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs. The order of stay dated November 5, 1976, is vacated. Writ petition dismissed