S.H.A.Raza, J. - (1.) THE only question involved in this writ petition is as to whether a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment from a public building, filed prior to 18-5-1983, will be governed by Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act or will be governed by the general law. the petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 1-11-1988, passed in revision by VIIth Additional District Judge, Hardoi, and dated 4-4-1987 passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Hardoi, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment filed against opposite parties no. 3 to 5. It was averred that the petitioner who is the landlord of the premises in dispute let out a house to Union of India through the Secretary Post and Telegraphs, Ministry of Communication and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hardoi Region, Hardoi and the Post Master, Branch Post Office, Ganga Rampur Chauraha, Kasba and Pargana Mallawan, Tehsil Bilgram, district Hardoi i.e. opposite parties no. 3 to 5 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month. THE petitioner filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the aforesaid tenants on 17/18th March, 1983 after giving, them a notice under Section 80 CPC and a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy as they failed to remit the rent for the period commencing from 1-3-1982 to 31-12-1982 to the petitioner inspite of several demands being made by him.
(2.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) was not applicable over the premises indispute because the aforesaid suit was instituted by the petitioner on 17-3-1983 and at that time the premises indispute was exempted from the operation of the Act. The premises in dispute came under 'Public Building', defined under Section 3 of the Act, and by means of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act such building were exempted from the operation of the Act. Hence the tenancy of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 was determined by means of notice under Section 106,of the Transfer of Property Act and the suit was filed. Although the tenants admitted the ownership of the petitioner as well as the arrears of rent commencing from the period 1-3-1982 to 31-12- 1982 amounting to Rs. 500/-. Their stand, in nut-shell, was that the Act was applicable on them and in view of Section 20 (4) of the Act they were not liable for eviction as they have tendered the requisite amount on the first date of. hearing i.e. 15-7-1983. Before the trial court as provided under Section 20 (4) "of the Act. However, the aforesaid tender under was not accepted by the trial court on that date. The contention of the petitioner is that before 18-5-1983 all the public buildings were exempted from the operation of the Act. Oh 18-5-1983 by means of Ordinance No. 28 of 1983, Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was amended and the exemption granted to all the public buildings earlier was limited to any building of which the government or a local authority or a public sector corporation was the landlord. Hence, the buildings which were in the tenancy of the government were excluded from the exemption. This Ordinance was granted extension by Ordinance No. 43 of 1983 and 6 of 1984 and finally by means of U. P. Act No. 17 of 1985. The aforesaid amendment in Section 2(1) (a) of the Act was finally brought into force with effect from 18-5-1983. The aforesaid amendment In the Act i.e. the exclusion of the government tenented 'buildings from the exemption clause of the Act under Section 2 of the Act was given retrospective effect from 18-5-1983 i.e. the retrospectivity of the aforesaid amending Act No. 17 of 1985 was valid only up to 18-5-1983 and not beyond. The suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the Munsif East, Hardoi i.e. the Judge Small Causes Court, Hardoi. The Vllth Additional District Judge, Hardoi, also dismissed the revision of the petitioner by giving a finding to the effect that since the aforesaid amendment in Section 2 (I) (a) of the Act was retrospective in nature, hence, though the suit was filed on 17-3-1983 and the amendment was brought on 18-5- 1983 the Act had become applicable on the premises lndispute. The aforesaid decision of the lower court was based on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Sugan Chandra, 1985 AWC 130.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in, Punjab National Banki (supra), reference before the Bench was not as to whether the amendment under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was retrospective in nature or not. Though the Full Bench had made its observation and has given its opinion in regard to this amendment but it was only obiter dictum and not ratio decidendi in the matter in issue and the courts below failed to consider the controversy and erred in dismissing the suit as well as the revision of the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 3 to 5. It has been averred that the law is well settled that a statute which is declaratory as distinct from being remedial takes retrospective effect. If a statute is in its nature declactory act, the argument that it is not to be construed so, as to take away its previously vested right is in applicable.;