H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, Shri Vishwanath Misra, a tenant of house No. 23 Hewett Road, Allahabad prays for a writ; order or direction in the nature of, certiorari for quashing the orders dated 28th May, 1971 arid 1 Mi July, 1972 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Allahabad and the State Government, He also prays that the proceedings for his ejectment pending before the Prescribed Authority initiated by Respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the aforementioned impugned orders, be quashed.
(2.) THE Petitioner is a tenant of house No. 23, Hewrit Road, Allahabad, of which Sri Prem Mohan Aggarwal Respondent No. 3 if the owner -landlord. In the year 1967 Sri Prem Mohan Aggarwal made an application Under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Apt, 1847 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act) for permission to file n suit for Petitioner's ejectment from the aforesaid house, winch was reject by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 20th of June, 168. That order was ultimately upheld by the State Government which dismissed the revision application, Under Section 7 -F of the 1947 Act, filed by the landlord, on 30th of January 1969. Shortly thereafter, on 7th of October 1970, Sri Prem Mohan Aggarwal made another application Under Section 3 of the 1947 Act, seeking permission to file a suit for Petitioners ejectment. This time the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by his older dated 29th of May 1971, allowed the application and granted the necessary permission to Sri Prem Mohan Aggarwal, Against this order the Petitioner went, up in revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division who by his order dated 4th of August, 1971, allowed the same and set aside the order of the Rent Control and friction Officer dated 28th of May, 1971. Sri Prem Mohan Aggarwal, the landlord, then approached the State Government Under Section 7 -F of the 1947 Act and the State Government by its order dated 11th of July 1972, allowed the revision and after setting aside the order passerby the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, it granted the necessary permission or filing it suit for Petitioner's ejectment to Sri Aggarwal. Aggrieved by the order of the State Government the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition, claiming that in the circumstances of the case, the Rent, Control and Eviction author ties had no jurisdiction to entertain an, application of the landlord, for permission to file a suit for Petitioner's ejectment and to grant the same.
(3.) IT appears that before the landlord could avail of the aforementioned permission and file a suit for Petitioner ejectment, the 1947 Act was repealed the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to all the 1972 Act), which came into force with effect from 15th of July, 1972. According the landlord, Sri Prem Mohan Aggarwal moved an application Under Section 23 of the 1972 Act, praying for an order for Petitioner's ejectment on the basis o the permission already obtained by biro. Subsequently, the Uttar Pradesh legislature passed the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 as a Result of which certain amendments were made in Clause (r) to Section 43 and a new Clause (rr) was added thereto. According 0 e amended Section 43 if in a case where permission Under Section 3 of the 1947 Act has been obtained on any ground specified in Sub -section (1) or Sub -section (2) of Section 41 of the 1972 Act and has become final either before the commencement of the Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972, or in accordance with the provisions of this sub -section, after the commencement of this Act and a suit for the eviction of the tenant has not bean instituted, the landlord is to apply to the prescribed authority for the ejectment of, his tenant Sub -section 21 of the Act. In view of these developments, the Petitioner got the writ petition amended and challenged the validity of the proceeding for his ejectment, initiated by the landlord, on the basis of the permission obtained under the 1947 Act. He also questioned the validity of the provision contained in Section 43(rr) of the 1972 Act.;