Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Yashwant Varma, JJ. - (1.) The jurisdiction in a PIL is invoked for seeking the following reliefs: "(i) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State Government to consider, within such period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court whether Rent Control Tribunals should be constituted for every districts in Uttar Pradesh or nor for speedy disposal of Rent Control Cases/in order to deliver speedy justice to Litigants. (ii) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding the Respondent No.3 to ensure that the provision of amended Section 179 of the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 is implemented in entirety by all the Municipal Corporation in Uttar Pradesh (including the Respondent No. 7). (iii) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State Government to make appropriate amendment in U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 so that the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammad Ahmad v. Atma Ram Chauhan (reported in 2011 (7) SCC 755 may be made Statutory guidelines. (iv) to issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Concerned Respondents to issue guidelines for payment of House Rent Allowance to Government Employees only after being satisfied that the Government Employee has made Payment of Agreed Rent to the landlord and has deposited entire property taxes in respect of the portion in his Tenancy (in case the building is governed by the Provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) directly in concerned Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation)."
(2.) We will deal with each of the reliefs seriatim.
(3.) Insofar as prayer (i) is concerned, Section 2-B of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was inserted by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, with effect from 5 July 1976. Under sub-section (1) of Section 2-B, the State Government is empowered, by a notified order, to constitute one or more Tribunals, to be called Rent Control Tribunals in each district and is likewise empowered to cancel or modify such orders. The petitioner has averred in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that on 6 December 1976, Rent Control Tribunals were constituted each for Kanpur, Lucknow and Varanasi but these were abolished by a subsequent notification dated 29 July 1977. Plainly, the provisions of Section 2-B confer a discretion on the Government to constitute Rent Control Tribunals. The High Court would not be justified in issuing a mandamus for the constitution of a Tribunal where the State Legislature has envisaged that it is for the Government to determine as to whether such Tribunals should constituted for any one or more district.;