T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) ONKAR Nath Singh, the opposite -party No. 2, filed an application under Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (U.P. Act XIII of 1972) seeking regularisation of his tenancy with respect to the accommodation in question. He alleged that he was a tenant and was in possession of the said accommodation at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/ - and that his tenancy had continued for the last six years. The application was opposed and an objection was filed on 18 -1 -1978 denying that Onkar Nath Singh was a tenant of the said premises. It was said that the application under Section 14 moved by Onkar Nath Singh was misconceived and not maintainable and that the premises in question being a part of the Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava Press wherein the printing and publishing work was being carried on, the provisions of the aforesaid Act did not apply. The Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control), Lucknow held that Onkar Nath Singh was living in the said accommodation, hence his tenancy was regularised. The Petitioners, who are the owners of the building No. 75, Hazratganj, Lucknow, of which the accommodation in question is a part have filed the instant petition. They have reiterated that Act XIII of 1972 did not apply to the premises in question and at any rate the said Act did not contemplate any application under Section 14 or any order for regularisation of tenancy under that section. It has also been contended that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control) was hence without jurisdiction. No counter -affidavit has been filed.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 has moved the application under Section 14 of the Act which reads as under: 14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants -Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building. It is quite plain that no application is required to be filed before the District Magistrate or any other authority under Section 14 seeking regularisation of occupation of an accommodation as a licensee or tenant. In the instant case the proceedings were taken before the Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control), Lucknow. He had no jurisdiction or authority to entertain an application purporting to be under Section 14 of the Act and to pass any order under that section. The scheme of the Act will indicate that certain specified powers have been conferred on certain specified authorities under the Act to make certain orders appropriate to the provision under which the application is made. No jurisdiction has, however, been conferred on any authority to make a declaration regularising the occupation of a person in a premises either as licensee or tenant. The proceedings taken before the Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control) under Section 14 would, therefore, be without jurisdiction and the order passed in those proceedings would be void. In the view I have taken I find support from a Division Bench decision in Shri. Zarif Ahmad v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ghaziabad 1980 Allahabad Rent Cases 581 wherein it was held that no application could be filed under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 either for regularisation or possession or for obtaining declaration of tenancy. The same view was expressed by another Division Bench in an earlier case of Mirza Samiullah Beg v. District Magistrate, 1979 (5) ALR 449. The view expressed by these two Division Benches was followed by a learned single Judge in Narendra Singh Sirohi v. S.D.O. ( R.C. and E.O.) Meerut 1982 Allahabad Rent Cases 250. The proceedings taken before the Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control), Lucknow were, therefore, without jurisdiction and the impugned order dated 24th January, 1979 passed by him under Section 14 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was void. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 24th January, 1979 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Rent Control), Lucknow a certified copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition is quashed. No order as to costs.;