- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. This is tenant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India whereby the order dated 24- 1-1983 passed by Special Judge (Essential Commodities) Act, Etawah exercising powers of the Additional District Judge has allowed the revision application filed by the landlord Mohd. Hanif-Respondent No. 3, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and remanded the case for decision afresh in view of the observa tions made in the body of the judgment.
(2.) LIST has been revised but none ap pears on behalf of the landlord-Respon dent No. 3. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner at some length. Mohd. Hanif-Respondent No. 3 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 18 of 1976 against the present petitioner for his eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as well as damages. The said suit was dismissed by the Judge Small Causes Court Etawah for the relief of ejectment on 4-9-1980 on the ground that the petitioner- tenant had not committed default in payment of arrears of rent and the suit was, therefore, barred by the provision of Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The landlord preferred revision application No. 118 of 1980 which was allowed and as said above, the case was remanded for decision afresh by order dated 24-1-1983. Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the order of remand is clearly against the well established proposition of law and since the decision of the trial Court is clearly in consonance with the decision of the apex Court in the case of Ratan Lal Singhal v. Smt. Muni Devi,l919 (5) ALR 595 (SC), followed by this Court in the case of Mohammad Shamim Ashmi v. The 1st Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1980 (6) ALR 193, there was no occasion for remanding the case and instead revision application filed by the landlord should have been dismissed.
(3.) THE moot point for consideration in the present case is whether the provisions of the Act applied to the tenanted accommodation or not which was admittedly constructed in the year 1968-69. THE landlord-Respondent had taken plea before the trial Court that the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 2of the Act which prescribes a period of ten years for application of the Act is not at tracted to the accommodation which was constructed in the year 1968-69 as the Act came into force on 15-7- 1972. THE trial Court has negatived this submission of the landlord and held that the provisions of the Act apply and since no ground for ejectment as mentioned in Section 20 (2) of the Act has been established order of ejectment cannot be passed against the tenant-petitioner by merely serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It appears that the revisional Court was having some doubts and con fusion about the legal position and adopted an easy course of remanding the case. Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that the revisional Court has ignored the well es tablished legal position that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section2, which reads as follows: "except as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 12, sub-section (1-A) of Section 2, sub section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or sub-section (1) of Section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construc tion is completed. " are prospective in nature and did not apply to any construction, which had been completed before 15th July, 1972. In Ratan Lal Singhal's case (supra) the view taken by the apex Court is that the provision, aforesaid, was prospective and meant to be applied only to the building constructed after the enforcement of the Act. The buildings which had been con structed prior to 15-7-1972 are within the sweep of the provisions of the Act. To such buildings, Section 2 (2) of the Act was not available. The law laid down in Moham mad Shamim Ashmi's case (supra) is fully applicable to the instant case. Though the tenancy of the petitioner could be ter minated by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, there was a restriction against his ejectment as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act.;