- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) THE Prescribed Authority considered the comparative needs of the parties and arrived at the conclusion that this was a fit case for grant of permission. In arriving at this conclusion, he did not commit any error of law. Counsel for the Petitioner next contended that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in the instant case was without jurisdiction as under Section 3(e) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred to as the New Act) only a magistrate of the first class could discharge the function of the prescribed authority, but on account of the passing of New Code of Criminal Procedure Sub -Divisional Magistrate ceased to possess the power of the magistrate of the first class therefore Sub -Divisional Officer, Gunnaur district Budaun who decided the present case had no authority to do so.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner also challenged the vires of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act No. 19 of 1974) by which an amendment was made in the new Act in this regard. The Act provides for a number of proceedings for different purposes under the various new Sections. The legislature has conferred the power to decide some of these proceedings on the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has been defined in Section 3(e) of the said Act as follows: 3(e) Prescribed Authority: Prescribed authority means a Magistrate of the first class having experience as such of not less than three years, authorised by the District Magistrate to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the prescribed authority under this Act, and different Magistrates may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases, and the District Magistrate may recall any case from any such Magistrate and may either dispose of it himself or, transfer it for disposal to any other such Magistrate.;