- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord has challenged the order dated 25 August, 1986, passed by the revisional Court, whereby the revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court. The trial Court vide his order dated 4 January, 1985 has decreed the suit against the petitioner-plaintiff.
(2.) IN short, the case of the petitioner-plaintiff is that the petitioner is a society registered under the provision of Societies of Registration Act, 1860, which runs an educational institution Anupam Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sambhal, district Moradabad, which is recognized institution by District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad since 27 November, 1982, the defendant of the suit is tenant in the aforesaid building in question, which was originally owned by Smt. Asharfi Devi. Smt. Asharfi Devi vide registered gift-deed dated 20 June, 1981 donated the building in question to the plaintiff Society and thereafter the petitioner-Society became the owner-landlord of the aforesaid building in question in which the defendant is tenant. Before the execution of the gift-deed, Smt. Asharfi Devi had already filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant-tenant, which was pending in the Court of Judge Small Cause Courts being O. S. No. 1 of 1979 Smt. Asharfi Devi v. Mahesh Kumar Nigam. After the gift was executed, the present plaintiff get himself substituted and has become the owner and landlord of the building in question by virtue of gift-deed dated 20th June, 1981. The plaint case now set up is that the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 will have no application with regard to the building in question from the date of gift deed dated 20 June, 1981. It is further alleged that plaintiff has served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, through its Counsel dated 6th December, 1982 terminating the tenancy of the defendant-tenant. After service notice upon the tenant, the defendant-tenant had sent Money Order for the rent, wherein the aid Money Order was towards the arrears of rent demanded by the notice, which was refused by the landlord, as would be clear from the report of the Post Office dated 14th December, 1982. As a consequence of the refusal of the rent sent by the tenant, the defendant tenant started depositing the rent in Misc. case No. 4 of 1983 under Section 30 (2) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In the aforesaid misc. case No. 4 of 1983, the defendant-tenant has denied the title of the plaintiff, but the same will have no effect as he has already admitted the ownership of Smt. Asharfi Devi in suit No. 1 of 1979. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed three issues; (1) whether provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 do not apply to the building in question as the property vests in educational institution?; (2) whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent ?; and (3) to what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? On issue No. 1, the trial Court after considering the evidence on record have held that since the institution is not a recognised institution, therefore, it cannot be said to be exempted from the operation of the Act No. XIII of 1972 and therefore, it is held that the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable to the building in question. Both the other issues were decided against he plaintiff, thus the suit was dismissed by the trial Court.
(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional Court under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court has held that the amended provision of Section 2 (1) (f) of The U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is not applicable as the building has not been build by the Society, as is clear from the plaint allegation that erstwhile owner Smt. Asharfi Devi has gifted it to the institution. The revisional Court, therefore, after considering the amended provision has held that the gift has been made in favour of the aforesaid society and the plaintiff Society is a registered Society, therefore, the building in question vests in the society, and not in the institution and thus held that the provision of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable to the building in question. On the question of default, it maintained the finding recorded by the trial Court. Thus, the revision filed by the plaintiff- petitioner was dismissed by the revisional Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- plaintiff has placed reliance of the amended provision of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1994, which came into force on 26th September, 1994, wherein the provision of Section 2 of the UP. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been amended again. The amendment incorporated by the aforesaid Ordinance, which has subsequent become Act, is reproduced below: "2. Amendment of Section 2 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.- In Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, - (a) in sub-section (1), - (i) in clause (a), after the words "a public sector corporation", the words "or a Cantonment Board" shall be inserted; (ii) in clause (b), the words "the whole of the income from which is utilized for the purpose of such institution" shall be omitted; (iii) after clause (b), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely: " (bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institution; (bbb) any building belonging to or vested in a Waqf including a Waqf- alal-aulad;"; (iv) after clause (f), the following clauses shall be inserted, namely: " (g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees; (h) any building of which a Mission of a foreign country or any international agency is the tenant;"; (b) sub-section (3) shall be omitted. ";