Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) A Division Bench felt unable to follow the law laid down by another Division Bench in Smt. Sarju Devi v. Prescribed Authority, Kanpur (1977 All LJ 251). It has referred the following question of law to a larger Bench. "Whether the Prescribed Authority, while exercising jurisdiction under Clause (rr) of Section 43 (2) of the 1972 Act, has jurisdiction to take subsequent events into consideration or to modify the permission granted under Section 3 of the 1947 Act and to evict a tenant from a portion of the building even though permission may have been granted in respect of the entire building?"
(2.) Section 43 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 deals with repeal and savings. By Sub-section (1), it repeals the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Sub-section (2) provides :-- "(2) Notwithstanding such repeal --(rr) Where any permission referred to in Section 3 of the old Act has been obtained on any ground specified in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 21, and has become final, either before the commencement of this Act, or in accordance with the provisions of this Sub-section, after the commencement of this Act, whether or not a suit for the eviction of the tenant has been instituted the landlord may apply to the prescribed authority for his eviction under Section 21, and thereupon the prescribed authority shall order the eviction of the tenant from the building under tenancy, and it shall not be necessary for the prescribed authority to satisfy itself afresh as to the existence of any ground as aforesaid, and such order shall be final and shall not be open to appeal under Section 22."
(3.) The conditions for the application of Clause (rr) are :-- (a) permission under Section 3 of the old Act, namely Act of 1947, has been granted and has become final; (b) the permission has been granted on any ground specified in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of this Act.;