A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against orders dated 30th October, 1978 and 20th July, 1978 passed respectively by the respondents nos. 1 and 2 releasing a residential accommodation, of which the petitioner was admittedly the tenant, in favour of respondent no. 3, the landlord, under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972.
(2.) The relevant facts he within a narrow compass and are not in dispute. The petitioner is an Auditor in the office of Controller of Defence Accounts. He was posted in that capacity at Meerut. The house in dispute was let out to him while he was posted at Meerut. The petitioner was residing in the said house with his family. On 9-6-1976, the petitioner was transferred, according to him temporarily, from Meerut to Roorkee. The petitioners family, however, continued to reside in the said house at Meerut. Immediately following the transfer of the petitioner, the landlord made an application for the release of the accommodation under Section 16 (1) (b) of the aforesaid Act alleging that the petitioner had been transferred to Roorkee at which place he had taken up a residence and that consequently the house was liable to be "deemed vacant" under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner contested the said application and asserted that his transfer to Roorkee was wholly temporary, that he would be shortly transferred back to Meerut and that in any case his family was still in occupation of the house in dispute with all his house-hold effects. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 20th July, 1978 overruled the petitioners objection declaring the house vacant with effect from June 1977 relying on the provisions of S. 12 (3-A) of the aforesaid Act and released it in favour of the landlord. The petitioner, thereupon, filed a revision before the learned District Judge, Meerut which has been dismissed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Meerut by an order dated 30th October, 1978. The learned District Judge placed reliance on sub-section (3-A) of Section 12 and held that in consequence of the transfer of the petitioner, the house was rightly deemed vacant with effect from 30th June, 1977. The revision of the petitioner was, accordingly, dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the respondents nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner has filed this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on several decisions of this court including a Full Bench decision given in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 750 of 1979 (Reported in 1980 All LJ 233) (Khubi Singh Yadav v. District Judge) urged that Section 12 (3-A) is prospective in its operation and that, inasmuch as, admittedly, the petitioner was transferred prior to the introduction of Section 12 (3-A), the said provision could have no application to the petitioners case. Consequently, both the courts below fell into a patent error of law in declaring vacancy on the mere ground of the transfer of the petitioner.;