(1.) The premises in dispute was allotted to respondent No.3 on 29.7.1971. The allottee could not obtain peaceful possession over the premises as it was found occupied by the petitioner. A notice under Sec. 7-A(l) dated Aug. 27/28, 1971 was served on the petitioner, who was in unauthorised occupation of the accommodation. While the proceedings were still pending the U. P. Urban Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force. The unauthorised occupant made an application that he was in occupation of the premises with the consent of the landlord and that his possession be regularised. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the petitioner and directed his eviction and delivery of possession to the allottee. On appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) It was contended for the petitioner that after coming into force of the Act the petitioner could not be evicted without a fresh application for that purpose under the new Act and since no such application was made, the order of his eviction was illegal. I find no merit in the contention. The order of allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 of was not challenged on any ground and it became final. Rule 14 of the rules framed under the Act provides for the enforcement of the order of allotment. Sec. 16 (4) of the Act provides that where the allottee has not been able to obtain possession of the building allotted to him and any other person has occupied or continued to occupy it is competent for the District Magistrate to put the allottee in possession by evicting the unauthorised occupant. Sec. 43(2) (t) further provides that any decision of the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority, the District Judge, the Commissioner or the State Government under the foregoing clauses may be enforced, whenever necessary, in like manner as if it were an order of the competent authority under the corresponding provisions of the Act. After the-order of allotment in favour of the respondent the notice was served on the petitioner under the relevant Provisions of the old Act. The proceedings were in progress when the new Act came into force. In such a situation it was not incumbent on the respondent to make any fresh application and the Prescribed Authority was competent to enforce the order of allotment under the new Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Sec. 43(2) (I1) and urged that before the order or allotment could be enforced it was incumbent on the allottee to make an application for amendment of his earlier application. In my opinion the aforesaid provision has no relevance at all to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There was no question of any amendment of the pleadings in consequence of the provisions of the new Act. The proceedings for putting the allottee in possession commenced under the old Act could be validly continued under the new Act without any amendment of the original application. The Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge committed no error in rejecting the contention of the petitioner.
(3.) The petition has no merits and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.