RANI SAXENA Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE property in dispute is the house situated in Etah. THE same was purchased by Smt. Savitri Devi, the landlady on 3rd of April, 1972 from one Girja Shanker. Though the actual sale deed was executed on 3rd April, 1972, it was actually registered on 16-11-1972. On 13th July, 1972, an application was filed under section 3 of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) for permission to file a suit for eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal need. After coming into force of the present Act, the application was amended and it was to be considered an application under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. THE Prescribed Authority by an order dated 23rd August, 1980, allowed the release application holding that the need of the landlady was bonaflde and genuine and further holding that comparative hardship of the landlady would be greater than the petitioners-tenant. Aggrieved by the decision of the Prescribed Authority dated 23rd August, 1980, an appeal was filed under section 22 of the Act. THE appeal was dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Etah on 24th March, 1983. THE petitioners have now challenged the orders dated 23rd August, 1980 and 24th March, 1983 by means of the present petition.

(3.) SECTION 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 specifically provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. This section is, therefore, specific. In view of this specific SECTION of the Registration Act, it is clear that the date on which the document was executed, has to be taken as the date from which it shall operate, though it might have been registered subsequently. This view of mine finds support from the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Ballabh Gurnani v. Maqbool Begum, 1980 AWC 329.