Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Petitioner-landlord filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.01.2000 passed by the appellate authority in R.C.A. No. 47 of 1994, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord was dismissed on the ground that since U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act1, has been amended and according to the amended provision, Section 2 (g) which provides that the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not apply to a building whose monthly rent is more than tow thousand of rupees. The appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord was, therefore, dismissed on the ground that the Act is not applicable.
(2.) The facts lending to the filing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is admittedly the landlord and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the tenant of the premises of the petitioner situated in Civil Lines, Allahabad. The petitioner filed an application under Section 21 (8) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972, which has been registered as Case No. 53 of 1992, before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad on the ground that the respondents-tenant is a public sector corporation and therefore the application under Section 21 (8) of the Act is maintainable for enhancement of the rent as the respondents-tenants has granted amenities to vacant on the ground of bona fide personal need of the landlord. According to the methodology prescribed under the provision of Section 21, which itself shows that the said application of the year 1992 was in fact filed in the month of February, 1993 and since then it remain pending. When it was decided by the Trial Court vide its order dated 07.02.1994, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has considered the report of the valuer submitted by the petitioner-landlord, which has assessed the value of the accommodation in question to Rs. 16,26,000/- and according to the methodology prescribed under Section 21 of the Act, 1/12 of the 10 percent of the aforesaid market value should be assessed with regard to the monthly rent and therefore it was modified that the monthly rent should be Rs. 13,550/- per month. An objection has been filed by the respondents-tenant that the aforesaid assessment is highly excessive and the market value of the building in question comes at the most at Rs. 2,50,000/-. The tenant has also submitted a report of the valuer, who has assessed the market value of the said building in question which comes to Rs. 8,43,000/-. On the assessment of both the reports, the Rent Control and Eviction officer without giving any reason has arrived at that the market value of the building in question is 10,00,000/- and according to which the monthly rent has been fixed by him to Rs. 8,333. It is this order against which an appeal, referred to above, was filed by the petitioner-landlord, which was dismissed on the ground that in between the Act has been amended and such building whose monthly rent is more than two thousand of rupees, has been taken out from the purview of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. A question has arisen as to whether the amendment by which Section 2 (g), which provides that if the monthly rent of a building is more than Rs. 2,000/-, then it would not be covered by the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as prospective or retrospective. This controversy has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Champa Devi (Smt.) and another v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer (1st), Allahabad and another, reported in 2002 (1) Allahabad Rent Cases, 192. The Division Bench of this Court relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. M/s. Amrit Lal & Co. and Another, reported in 2001 SCFBRC 484, has held that clause (g) to Section 2 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, inserted in the Act by Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, will not affect the proceedings pending on the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995. In this view of the matter, the amended provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which came into existence only in the year 1995 when the aforesaid proceedings were pending, will have no affect and, in my opinion, the appellate authority has committed an error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-landlord. The order of the appellate authority thus required to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the appellate authority with a direction to decided the same in accordance with law afresh as if Section 2 (g) as amended by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 has not come into force. Since the matter is fairly old, the appellate authority is directed to decide the matter within a period of three months' from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him after affording opportunity to adduce such further evidence and permit the parties to amend the pleadings as they want to adduce in the circumstances of the case.
(3.) In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 11.01.2000 passed by the appellate authority is quashed. The appellate authority is directed to decided the matter in the light of the observations made above. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;