N.D. Ojha, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is the landlord of a building which is situate within the Cantonment area of Jhansi. This building was let out to Respondent No. 3. Subsequently, an application was made by the Petitioner for release of the aforesaid building in his favour under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that he needed it bonafide for his own use. This application was contested by Respondent No. 3 but was allowed by the Prescribed Authority.
(2.) AN appeal was preferred by Respondent No. 3 before the District Judge. He has taken the view that since the Act "as in force on the date of this notification" was made applicable to the buildings situated within the Cantonment areas by the Notification dated 1st September, 1973, issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Act 46 of 1957) the Act as it existed on 1st September 1973 alone was applicable to buildings which were situated within a cantonment area. He has further held that since the Officer who passed the order under appeal had been authorized by the District Judge to exercise the powers of Prescribed Authority in pursuance of definition of the term 'Prescribed Authority' contained in Section 3(e) of the Act as amended by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 and the said officer had not been authorized to exercise the powers of Prescribed Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act as they stood on 1st September, 1973, he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application made by the Petitioner under Section 21 of the Act. On this view the District Judge without going into the merits of the appeal allowed it and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority on 2 -2 -1981. It is this order of the District Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the view taken by the District Judge cannot be sustained. That the provisions of the Act are applicable to the Cantonment areas of Uttar Pradesh subject to the restrictions and exceptions contained in Act 46 of 1967 and the modifications contained in the notification dated September 1, 1973 issued by the Central Government published in the Gazette of India dated September 29, 1973 admits of no doubt in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Lekhraj v. 4th Additional District Judge, Meerut : 1982 AWC 235.
(3.) THE question which really falls for consideration in the present writ petition is as to what is the effect of the words "as in force on the date of this notification" used in the aforesaid notification dated 1st September, 1973. As seen above this notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 3 of Act 46 of 1957. The said section which in so far as is relevant for the decision of the aforesaid question as it stood before its amendment by the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as Act 22 of 1972, read as follows: 3. Power to extend to cantonments laws relating to control of rents and regulation of house accommodations. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend to any cantonment with such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force on the date of the notification in the State in which the cantonment is situated: Provided.... Section 3 of Act 22 of 1972 inter alia provides that Section 3 of the Principal Act namely Act 46 of 1957 shall be renumbered as Sub -section (1) thereof, and in Sub -section (1) as so renumbered the words "on the date of the notification" shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been omitted.;