PREMIER MOTOR PVT LTD Vs. JASWANT PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (for himself and on behalf of A.N. Varma, J.) :- One of the questions involved in this revision is as to whether a defence of a tenant can be struck off for non-compliance of Rule 5 of Order XV as added by the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976, (U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976) hereinafter REFERRED TO as the U.P. Act). Hon. B.N. Sapru, J. by his order dated 29th April, 1987 when the revision came up for hearing before him, directed that the papers of the case be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench to consider the following questions : - 1. Whether in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Ganpat Giri v. II Addl. District Judge, AIR 1986 SC 589 the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the C.P.C. stood repealed by virtue of the provisions of Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 104 of 1976) hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Central Act?

(2.) Whether the Central Amendments having come into force w.e.f. 1-2-1977 repealed the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure introduced by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976? Reported in (1987) 2 All Rent Cas 181. 2. In Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh, (1979) 5 All LR 56 : (1979 All LJ 401) a Full Bench of this Court had already taken a view that Order XV, Rule 5 as added by the U. P. Act was valid and did not stand repealed by virtue of the Central Act. Since the matter has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court, in effect, the question which was referred by Hon'ble B.N. Sapru, J. amounted to reconsideration of the decision in the case of Smt. Chandra Rani, (1979 All LJ 401) (FB) (supra) in view of certain observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganpat Giri's case, (AIR 1986 SC 589) REFERRED TO above The Hon'ble Chief Justice has directed that the papers of this case be laid before us to consider as to whether the Full Bench decision in the case of Chandra Rani (supra) requires reconsideration or not. 2A. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) In Ganpat Giri's case (supra), the question which has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether the amendment made in Order XXI, Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Code) which was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the commencement of the Central Act was inconsistent or not with the provisions of the Central Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Order XXI, Rule 72 of the Code which was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to the Central Act, was directly inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act and as such, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the amended Order XXI, Rule 72 of the Code which was in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh prior to February 1, 1977, did not continue after 1st February, 1977.