- (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner R.K. Berry seeks the quashing of the orders dated 30.12.1972, 29.3.1973 and 27.5.1973 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Agra, Commissioner Agra Division and the State Government, respectively.
(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of bungalow No. 153 Lal Kurti, Agra Cantt. Respondent No. 4, A.D. Dhawan, is the owner and landlord of that building. The accommodation in dispute is situated in the Cantonment area. Originally the procedure for letting and eviction of tenants in respect of the accommodation situated in Cantonment areas, was governed by U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction Act) Act X of 1952. In the year 1957 the Parliament passed the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act of 1950. Section 3 of the said Act authorised the Central Government to issue a notification extending the provisions of any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation, in any State, existing on the date of the notification with such restriction and modification as it may deem fit to the area lying in Cantonment. The Parliament passed yet another Act in the year 1971 entitled as U.P. Cantonment of Rent and Eviction Repeal Act 1971. Section 2 of that Act provided that on and from the date, the U.P. Act III of 1947 is extended by notification under Section 3 of Act No. 46 of 1957 to the Cantonments in the State of U.P. Act No. X of 1952 shall stand repealed. However, the necessary notification extending the provisions of U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act III of 1947) to the Cantonment Areas was issued on 3rd April 1973. The result was that notwithstanding the enactment of the 1957 and 1971. Acts mentioned above the Cantonment Control of Rent and Eviction Act i.e. Act X of 1952 continued to be applicable in Cantonment areas of U.P. right upto 3rd April 1972, where after the provisions of U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act III of 1947 became applicable to that area on 30th June, 1971, before the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947 were made applicable to the Cantonment area, Sri A.D. Dhawan, respondent No. 4 made an application under Section 14 of Act X of 1952, seeking permission to evict the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute. Before that application could be disposed of the U.P. Legislature passed the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting and Eviction Act 1972, Act XIII of 1972 which came into force on 15th July, 1972 Section 14 of Act III of 1972 repealed U.P. Act III of 1947. Notwithstanding the repeal of U.P. Act III of 1947, the proceedings under Section 14 of 1952 instituted on 30.6.1971 were converted into proceeding under Section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947. After considering the respective cases of the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by his order dated 20th December 1972, granted permission to the landlord to file a suit for petitioner's ejectment. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went up in revision before the Commissioner Agra Division. He inter alia contended that after the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 had repealed U.P. Act III of 1947, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the application for permission under that Act. Besides this the petitioner also urged that, in the circumstances, no permission to file a suit for his ejectment should have been granted. The Commissioner over-ruled both the pleas raised by the petitioner and upheld the order, dated 20th December, 1972 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner then took the matter up in revision before the State Government which dismissed the revision by its order dated 27th April 1973, observing that as the provision of U.P. Act III of 1947 stood repealed by U.P. Act XIII of 1972, it had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 7-F of U.P. Act III of 1947. The petitioner has now approached this Court and has prayed that the three orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Commissioner Agra Division and the State Government, be quashed and the application moved by Sri Dhawan, respondent No. 4, for permission to file a suit for his ejectment, be rejected.
(3.) The first submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the State Government erred in dismissing the revision filed by him on the ground that after repeal of U.P. Act III of 1947 it had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under Section 7-F of that Act. While making this submission, learned counsel appears to abandon the objection that in view of the repeal of Act III of 1947, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to consider an application for permission to file a suit for his ejectment. However, I propose to deal with the question whether in view of the passing of the U.P. Urban Building Regulations of Letting Rent and Eviction Act of 1972 which repealed the provisions of U.P. Act III of 1947, proceedings for permission to file a suit for ejectment of a tenant, in areas lying within the Cantonment limits, could be continued and whether the State Government could exercise jurisdiction under Section 7-F of that Act.;