- (1.) This case has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court, as he doubted the correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case, Om Kumar v. District Judge,1980 RCC 9 (DB), which throws doubt on the correctness of two decisions of single Judges in Life Insurance Corporation of India. v. Additional District Judge,1981 RCC 74, and Radha Krishna v. State,1981 UPPCP 78. As the entire writ petition has been referred to us, the facts of the case may be shortly stated.
(2.) The petitioners are the landlord of the premises of which the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad is a tenant, and a Government Health School under the Director of Medical, Health and Family Welfare is being run. An application was made by the petitioners under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who enhanced the rent to an amount of 2910.00 per month. Aggrieved by this order the respondents filed an appeal before the District Judge. This appeal was allowed by the District Judge relying on the decision of the Division Bench in Om Kumar's case wherein it had been held that on account of deletion of clauses (ii) and (iv) to the explanation to Section 21(1) of the Act by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, Section 21(8) had become meaningless. The appellate Court authority held that in view of this pronouncement no relief under-section 21(8) for enhancement could be given. The petitioners have challenged this order.
(3.) It will be worthwhile extracting clauses (ii) and (iv) of the explanation to Section 21(1) as it stood before the amendment effected by Act 28 of 1976. "(ii) where the landlord was engaged in any profession, trade calling or employment, away from the city, municipality, notified area or town area, within which the building is situated and by reason of the cessation of such engagement, he needs the building for occupation by himself for residential purposes, such need shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of clause(a) ; (iv) The fact that the building under tenancy is part of a building the remaining part whereof is in the occupation of the landlord for residential purposes shall be conclusive to prove that the building is bonafide required by the landlord." By Act 28 of 1976 clauses (ii) and (iv) were omitted. This very amending act introduced Section 21(8) in the Act, which runs as under : "(2) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable : Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefore to a sum equivalent to one twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application : Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement.";