V.K. Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of the IInd Additional District Judge, Agra dated 22 -9 -1982 allowing the application 4 -C and directing the landlord to place the erstwhile tenant in occupation of the premises in dispute.
(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purposes of deciding the present writ petition are that the landlord started proceedings under Section 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act No. III of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act". The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application of the landlord. Feeling aggrieved the landlord preferred a revision to the Commissioner which was pending at the time of the coming into force of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter described as the "New Act"). In view of the provisions of Section 43 of the new Act the revision pending before the Commissioner, Agra Division, stood transferred to the District Judge, Agra and had to be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 43(2)(m) and (q) of the new Act. The District Judge allowed the application of the landlord which became final in view of the provisions of Section 43 of the new Act and the landlord in pursuance of the aforesaid decision, in fact, got possession of the premises in dispute. The landlord later on let out the premises to some other person even though he had sought release of the premises in dispute on the ground of his bonafide requirement. The erstwhile tenant, who had been evicted at the instance of the landlord, therefore, initiated proceedings under Section 24 of the new Act for getting back the possession of the premises in dispute. Under the impugned order it is this application moved by the tenant which has been allowed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Agra by invoking the provisions of Section 24 of the new Act. In the present writ Petition the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised only one question i.e. the provisions of Section 24 of the new Act are not applicable to the case inasmuch as the District Judge while deciding the revision, which had been transferred under Section 43(2)(m) of the new Act did not exercise powers under Section 21 of the new Act. It has been strenuously urged that to the revision which had been transferred to the District Judge, the provisions of the old Act were applicable and thus the order passed could be treated an order under the old Act and by no stretch of imagination could be treated an order under Section 21 of the New Act. Reliance has been placed on a single Judge decision of this Court reported in Kundan Lal v. District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, 1980 ARC 257. The respondent's counsel in this case has, however, placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Karam Chand v. Bal Mukund : 1976 AWC 428. On the basis of the aforesaid Full Bench decision it has been argued that to a revision which is transferred to the District Judge under Section 43(2)(m) the provisions of the New Act were applicable and the District Judge had to decide the matter under Section 21 of the New Act.
(3.) A bare perusal of the decision given by this Court in the case of Karam Chand (supra) would disclose that the following question was referred to the Full Bench for decision: Whether a revision relating to the grant of permission under Section 3 of the old Act, pending immediately before the commencement of the New Act, before the Commissioner and transferred to the District Judge after the commencement of the new Act, would be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the old Act or it shall be deemed to be an application or a proceeding under Section 21 of 1972 Act and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Act? The full bench to the aforesaid question which was referred to it answered in the following terms: A revision relating to the grant of permission under Section 3 of U.P. Act III of 1947 pending immediately before the commencement of the New Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) before the Commissioner and transferred to the District Judge on commencement of the New Act shall be decided In accordance with the procedure and conditions laid down in Section 21 of the new Act and not in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Act No. III of 1941.... (emphasis provided) The question raised in the present writ petition is therefore, precisely the question which was referred to the Full Bench and the Full Bench has clearly held that the District Judge has to decide the transferred revision in accordance with the procedure and conditions laid down in Section 21 of the New Act. The decision thus given by the District Judge will be a decision under Section 21 and thus the provisions of Section 24 of the new Act are clearly applicable to the case. It may be noticed that the Single Judge decision on which defiance has been placed by the Petitioner is clearly distinguishable. In that case the permission which had been obtained under the old Act had become final and even this Court in writ petition had affirmed the decision given by the authorities under the old Act. The only thing which was sought by the landlord in that case was execution of that permission under the specific provisions of Section 42(2)(r) of the New Act. In the present case, as has been observed, the permission was granted for the first time under the New Act by the District Judge in the revision, which was transferred to him under Section 43(2)(m) of the Act. The permission was thus referable to the power given under the New Act under Section 21.;