Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.7.2000 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar, in Case No. 124 of 1997, (Tariq Abdulla v. Thakur Radha Kishanji Maharaj), whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioner for issuing form D (pursuant to the order of allotment dated 23.12.1993 and confirmed by the Revisional Court dated 18.3.1997), on the ground that after amendment in the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 vide Act No. 5 of 1995, whereby clause (bb) has been added in section 2(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act), excluding the applicability of the Act to a building, which belongs to or is vested in a public charitable or public religious institution, the allotted premises is out of the purview of the Act. I have heard Sri Atul Dayal learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) SRI Atul Dayal has contended firstly that the building was owned by a private religious trust and not by an institution and, therefore, the reasoning given by the Additional District Magistrate in the impugned order is incorrect. Secondly, it is contended that even if the building was covered by clause (bb) of section 2(1) of the Act the order of allotment was passed on 23.12.1993 whereas the amending Act came into force on 26.9.1994 and the amending Act being not retrospective but only prospective the District Magistrate was under the legal obligation to carry out the allotment order and ensure delivery of possession in accordance with law. Sri Atul Dayal learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Champa Devi and others v. Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Allahabad and another : 2002 (46) ALR 430. It has been held that the said judgment that the provisions of amending Act No. 5 of the 1995 will have no effect on the proceedings pending on the date of enforcement of U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995. Whether or not the building was owned by private charitable trusts or by a charitable trusts, the allotment order having been passed prior to the amendment in the Act, it will not be effected by the provisions of the amending Act and will continue to take its own course under the existing provisions of the order of allotment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the landlord, i.e. the respondent No. 2 has also filed an application before the respondent No. 1 dated 26.5.1999/5.6.1999 stating therein that it has no objection that the proceedings for delivery of possession may continue pursuant to the allotment order and it will abide by the allotment order. Since there was consent of the landlord the petitioner could have taken possession from the landlord directly, however, to avoid any harassment and pressure of the district administration, the present petition has been filed.
(3.) THE impugned order thus cannot be sustained for the reasons stated above. The District Magistrate was obliged under law to take necessary steps and issue from D for delivery of possession to the petitioner. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.7.2000 passed by the District Magistrate is set aside and he is further directed to ensure delivery of possession of the allotted premises to the petitioner.;