Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. No one appears for the contesting respondent in spite of service of notice held sufficient. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional Court has rejected the revision on the ground that in view of the amendment in section 2(1)(bbb), which has been brought on the Statute by amending Act No. 5 of 1995, the provisions of Act are not applicable to the accommodation in question as the same is held to be a Charitable Trust. In this view of the fact the matter, which was pending before the revisional Court, is held to be not maintainable and the revision was dismissed.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in Champa Devi (Smt.) and another v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer (1st), Allahabad and another : 2002 (46) ALR 430, wherein the Division Bench has held that the amendment brought on the Statute by amending Act No. 5 of 1995 is prospective in nature and will apply only on the date of the amendment. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the revisional Court suffers from the manifest error of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order dated 14th February, 2000 passed by the revisional Court is quashed. The revisional Court is directed to decide the revision afresh in the light of the observations made above expeditiously.;