Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.B.Paul and Sri A.P.Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.K.Gupta, learned counsel forthe respondents.
(2.) It is contended that Revisional Court, on one hand held that even if the property is a Wakf property and it is exempted from application of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") under Section 2(1 )(bbb) of Act, 1972 that would not make any difference since suit for ejectment itself would lie in Small Cause Court and the revision before the same Revisional Court. It is submitted that once it is held that Act, 1972 was not applicable in view of Section 2(1)(bbb) of Act, 1972, the plaint has to be returned to the plaintiff so as to be presented in appropriate Court under relevant provisions and on this aspect Revisional Court has committed manifest error.
(3.) The submission is thoroughly misconceived. In 1990, when the suit itself was filed, there was no exemption in respect to application of Act, 1972 to the property belong to a Wakf. Section 2(1)(bbb) came to be inserted by U.P. Act No.5 of 1995 w.e.f. 26th September, 1994 and provision is not retrospective. It would not affect pending proceedings. This is what has already been held by Apex Court as well as by a larger Bench i.e. Division Bench of this Court. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amrit Lal & Company and Another, 2001(8) SCC 397 the Court has held that insertion of certain provision in the principal Act, taking away application of the Act, would not affect pending proceedings, if on the date when proceedings were initiated, the same were well within its jurisdiction.;