- (1.) VIKRAM Nath, J. This petition has been filed by the allottee for quashing the order dated 26-4-2001 passed by 7th Addl. District Judge (Court No. 7) Bareilly passed in Rent Control Revision No. 136 of 1988, (Kaleem Ullah Khan v. The State of U. P. & Ors.) whereby the said revision has been allowed and the order of allotment dated 9-9-1988 passed in favour of the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly has been quashed.
(2.) THE dispute relates to ground floor portion of house No. 2 Mohalla Aqab Kotwali Gali Maniharan, Bareilly. It is alleged that the said house belong to Waqf Alal-Aulad and Smt. Rais Begum was its Mutwalli. THE premises having fallen vacant the petitioner applied for allotment of the same, which was registered as case No. 28 of 1986 in the Court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly. After inviting objections and affording opportunity of evidence and hearing to the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 9-9-1988 directed for allotment of the premises in favour of the petitioner. Subsequent there to possession was also delivered on 13-9-1988 to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of allotment respondent No. 2 filed revision under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) before the District Judge, Bareilly which was registered as Rent Control Revision No. 136 of 1988. During the pendency of the revision an amendment was brought in the Act being U. P. being U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 whereby after Clause B in Section 2 of the Act, Clauses (bb) and (bbb) were added vide Section 2 (a) (iii) of the aforesaid amending Act. Section 2 of the Amending Act is reproduced herein 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 Cantoment Board" shall be inserted; (ii) in clause (b), the words" the whole of the income from which is utilized of 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 institution; (bbb) any building belonging to or vested in 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;" (a) Sub-section (3) shall be omitted". By insertion of Clause (bbb) in Section 2 of the Act any building belonging to or vested in a waqf including a Waqf-alal- aulad was excluded from the purview of the Act meaning thereby that the protection available to the tenant and the rights available to the landlords under the Act would not be available to the tenant as well as the landlord. The amending Act did not make any provision with regard to the pending proceeding under the Act, on the date of coming of Amending Act.
(3.) THE Rent Control Revision No. 136 of 1988 came up for hearing before the respondent No. 1 much after the amendment of 1995 Act and the revisional Court vide judgment dated 26-4-2001 came to the conclusion that since the building belonging to or vested in a waqf including a waqf-alal-auld has been excluded from the purview of the Act, therefore, the order of allotment passed on 9-9-1988 was also without jurisdiction and it accordingly allowed the revision and set aside the order of allotment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard Sri K. G. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Nagaich learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2 and also learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3.;