- (1.) This is a landlord's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the orders dated 3-9-1976 and 21-4-1978 passed by Respondents Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. The Petitioner is owner of a house property in the town of Chandpur, district Bijnor and since long it has been on lease with Vedic Kanya Pathshala, Chandpur, district Bijnor, Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner had been in service in Rajasthan and on his retirement he wanted this house for his personal residence and hence moved an application under Section 21 of the Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The application was resisted by the tenant. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application on the ground that since the tenant is a recognised educational institution, it is not liable to ejectment under Section 21(8) of the Act. The same view has been taken on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Bijnor.
(2.) Sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act which reads as under was inserted by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976. (8). Nothing in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to State Government, or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation, or to a recognised educational institution, unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom Clause (ii) or Clause (iv) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) is applicable; Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefor to a sum equivalent to one twelfth of ten percent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application; Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement. Clauses (ii) and (iv) of the Explanation to Sub-section (1) were omitted by this very Amending Act and, therefore, the last portion of the sub-section does not carry any meaning.
(3.) Two submissions were made before me on behalf of the Petitioner. Firstly that Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 being substantive in nature cannot be controlled by Sub-section (8) which has not been given retrospective effect and thus proceedings pending when this amendment was made would not be governed by it. The second submission made was that the provisions contained in Sub-section (8) aforesaid being discriminatory, is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.;