MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Prescribed Authority allowed the landlord's application under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) and enhanced the monthly rent of the building under tenancy of the petitioner from Rs. 2,0007- to Rs. 14,533,33/- vide order dated 30. 12. 1995. The appeal preferred against the said order having been dismissed as barred by time by the District Judge, Agra vide order dated 30-5-1996, the tenant- petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) SRI K. L. Grover, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that as a result of clause (g) of Section 2 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 inserted by Section 2 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995, the building in ques tion stood exempted from the purview of the Act with effect from 26. 9. 1994 and con sequently, proceeds the submission, the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 30-12-1995 enhancing the monthly rent of the building. SRI Grover urged that 'building' means the building as a whole and when a building is let out in part it is the sum total of rent of the entire building so let out which would deter mine whether the building has been let out on monthly rent exceeding Rs. 2,000/- and not the rent of a part of the building which is under the tenancy of a tenant. It was also urged that the rent would include the tax payable by a tenant under Section 7 of the Act. SRI Ravi Kant appearing for the respon dent landlady refuted the submission made by SRI Grover and placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Chunnu Lal v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1975 A. W. C. 930 wherein it has been held that the word 'building' under the Act has a special meaning and not the meaning ordinarily understood and that the term 'building' does not mean the entire super structure but means only a portion of super structure which is independently liable to be dealt with for purposes of letting out that is to say a building under the Act means only an independent lettable accommodation whether singly situated or as a part of a building complex.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also urged that the appellate Court was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. LEARNED Counsel submitted that there provision in the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, unlike provisions contained in the Limitation Act, 1963, ending for dismissal of appeal on the ground of being barred by-time. Submission made by the learned Counsel be countenanced. Section 3 of the Limitation Act would apply in relation to appeal under the Act virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is a special Act and prescription of thirty days period of limitation for filing appeal' by Section 10 (1) which Section would apply also for the purposes of Section 22 of the Act, is tantamount to prescribing the period of limitation under special or local law within the meaning of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and that being so the provisions of Section 3 as also Sections of the Limitation Act would apply in relation to an appeal under the Act and an appeal under Section 22 of the Act may be dismissed as barred by time if the delay in filing the appeal is not explained satisfac torily. In any case the petitioner having al ready invoked the provisions of Section 5 cannot be permitted to say, after having lost the case, that the said provisions were not applicable. However, having regard to the discussion made in the preceding para graphs of this judgment, I am inclined to quash the appellate order in the ends of justice and direct the appellate Court to entertain the appeal and decide it on merit after affording due opportunity to the par ties to lead evidence on the question as to whether the monthly rent of the building exceeds rupees two thousand as well as the question as to what is the market value of the building under tenancy.