- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-landlords, aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional Court dated 28th February, 1990, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter came to this Court earlier and this Court issued direction which is reproduced in the form of Annexure-3 to the writ petition, namely, judgment dated 24th January, 1985 in Writ Petition No. 1967 of 1981. It will be necessary, for deciding the controversy, to quote the last sentence of the last but one paragraph of the said judgment: "the revisional authority can decide the revision afresh after taking into consideration the consequence of the aforesaid Supreme Court's judgment in accordance with law. "
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the case of Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Vadhera, 1984 AWC 128, the revisional Court should decide the matter as already directed by this Court. LEARNED counsel further submitted that between the date of direction and the date of decision by the revisional Court the case of Vineet Kumar (supra) has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case reported in Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, 1988 (2) Allahabad Rent Cases 557. After considering the case of Vineet Kumar the Supreme Court has observed that if the immunity from the operation of the Rent Act is made and depended upon the ultimate disposal of the case within the period of exemption of 10 years which is in reality an impossibility, then there would be empty reasons. In our opinion, bearing in mind the well-settle principles that the rights of the parties crystalise to the date of the institution of the suit as enunciated by this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig. Vijendrapal Gupta, (1982) 3 SCC 491 (supra), the meaningful construction must be that the exemption would apply for a period of 10 years and will continue to be available until suit is disposed of or adjudicated upon. The same view has been reiterated by the apex Court in the case reported in 1992 (1) ARC 305, Ramesh Chandra v. III Additional District Judge. In this view of the matter the revisional Court's observation that it has to decide the case according to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1967 of 1981 meaning thereby that he has to decide only in accordance with law laid down in the case of Vineet Kumar. In my opinion the revisional Court has erred in law in considering that this Court has issued direction to decide the case in accordance with law in the light of observations made in the case of Vineet Kumar. The direction of this Court that the case has to be decided in the light of the observation made in the case of Vineet Kumar (supra) and in accordance with law clearly demarcates that the case has to be decided by the revisional Court in accordance with law as is prevailing on the date of the decision of the revisional Court. Since the case of Vineet Kumar (supra) has been reconsidered by the apex Court in the case reported in 1992 (1) ARC 305, Ramesh Chandra v. III Additional District Judge, the revisional Court was bound to decide the case in accordance with the observation made in Ramesh Chandra's case (supra) and not in the light of Vineet Kumar's case.
(3.) THUS the view taken by the revisional Court suffers from error of law which requires to be quashed by this Court and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The revisional Court is directed to decide the case in accordance with law in the light of observation made in this judgment within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. W. P. allowed. .;