K.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) FINDING a conflict between the decisions of two Single Judges reported in Shri Chand Gupta v. Madan Lal, 1973 AWR 472 and Dinesh Chandra Gupta v. Kashi Nath Seth, 1976 ALJ 124, Hon. A. N. Varma, J., has referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench for its opinion : "Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the benefit of Section 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to a tenant, if the deposit made by him falls short of the amount or amounts required to be deposited under that provision on account of a bona fide mistake ?"
(2.) SUIT No. 42 of 1973 was filed for eviction on the Small Cause Court side. It was contested by the defendant who alleged that since U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act XIII of 1972) had become applicable to the building in question, the plaintiff was not entitled to get a decree without complying with the conditions mentioned in Section 39 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. Holding that U. P. Act XIII of 1972 did not apply to the building in question, the Judge Small Causes, decreed the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages. The defendant went up in revision to the District Judge under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Additional District Judge, to whom the revision was transferred, held that by virtue of Section 2, U. P. Act XIII of 1972 became applicable to the building in question. Having further found that the defendant had substantially deposited the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation together with interest thereon at the rate of nine percent per annum and the landlord's full costs of the suit, he held that no decree for eviction could be passed against the defendant. The decree of the trial court was thus reversed. This led to the filing of the present writ petition. In the writ petition, the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff was that since the deposit made by the defendant fell short by Rs. 104/-, the Additional District Judge committed an error in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. Rebutting the said argument, defendant's contention made was that Section 39 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was required to be substantially complied with and as the shortfall in the compliance of Section 39 was infinitesimal, the same could not amount to failure to comply with the requirement of Section 39.
(3.) ON the above controversy, the parties relied on the two decisions, referred to in the first paragraph of this judgment, apart from others which the learned Single Judge found difficult to reconcile hence he made this reference. For appreciating the point urged, it may be noted that U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, applied to buildings which were constructed upto the month of January, 1951. There was no Act providing for the regulating of letting and rent in respect of buildings constructed after this date. In 1972, the U. P. Legislature passed U. P. Act XIII of 1972 and took within its purview all the constructions which were in existence at the time of coming into force of the said Act. It, however, provided for exemption in Section 2 from operation of the Act certain buildings which were enumerated therein. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 lays down that nothing contained in the Act applied to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed, as a result whereof the Act did not apply to a building for ten years from the date of its construction.;