R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) ENTERTAINING doubt about correctness of observation made in Savitri Devi v. Shobran Singh, 1979 ARC 398 that an application for release of a building under Act XIII of 1972 could be allowed even though it was filed when Act was not applicable but became applicable during pendency of application as Supreme Court in Rameshwar v. J.R. Ram : AIR 1976 SC 49 had observed that the right to relief must be judged to exist on the date a suitor instituted a legal proceeding a learned Single Judge of this Court referred this tenant's petition for hearing and decision by a larger bench as to whether the two authorities were justified in entertaining and allowing the application for release filed Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) although the Act had not become applicable to the premises on the date when application was presented. Reference was made also as certain observations in Ram Nath Export Ltd. v. Addl District Judge, Allahabad, 1984 ARC 397 on Rule 16, framed under the Act ran contrary to Smt. Chandra Devi v. XII Addl. District Judge, 1983 CJ 627. As entree petition was being referred the learned Judge was of opinion that one of the pertinent question that arose for consideration was whether a tenant was entitled to invoke equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution specially when he did not bake by the terms agreed and was not prepared to deliver back possession to the landlord after expiry of the term. No arguments, however, were heard on Rule 16 because if the answer to the first question is in affirmative and it is held that application was not maintainable then the decision on Rule 16 would have been obiter dicta only.
(2.) FOR deciding the controversy regarding maintainability of application suffice it to mention that house in dispute was constructed in 1971 the application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed in July, 1980. The building, therefore, had not completed ten years, from the date of its construction, when the application was presented. Thai; the application was not maintainable could not be seriously disputed as, Sub -section (2) of Section 2 of the Act provides that, 'except as provided in Sub -section (5) of Section 12, Sub -section (1 -A) of Section 21, Sub -section (2) of Section 24, Section 24 -A, 24 -B, and 24 -C or Sub -section (3) of Section 29 nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years on the date on which its construction was completed.' It is not necessary to mention about the proviso or explanation 1 and 2 of this sub -section, as they are not very material for controversy in question. A bare reading of this sub -section indicates that barring the circumstances mentioned in it the Act does not apply to a building which had not completed ten years from the date of its construction, And the bar appears to be absolute. The language of the Section, its setting and objective all support the same conclusion. The Legislature while restricting and regulating, letting and rent of buildings situated in urban area has been keen to grant ten years exemption to provide impetus for building activity except where landlord or tenant has to vacate the accommodation in his possession either because the building was needed by the government or because the tenant had been directed to be evicted on application of landlord Under Section 21. The sub -section, therefore, while exempting buildings from operation of the Act if it had not completed ten years created another exception in respect of those buildings, which were covered by various sections mentioned therein. It eliminates any scope for argument that the Act by virtue of section 1 applies to all buildings. Section 1 of the Act only extends the provisions of Act to every city, municipality, notified area, town area etc. But even there the Legislature left the option to State Government to exclude any area from applicability of the Act by issuing a notification to that effect. But from these areas that is, the Municipality, town area etc. the Legislature itself excluded certain buildings. In other words although the fact applies to the area where building might be situated but if a building is of the category mentioned in Section 2 then it stands excluded from operation of the Act. It is an act which regulates letting and eviction of and from a building. They are dealt by Chapter III and IV of the Act. Section 11 prohibits letting of any building except in pursuance of allotment order, Section 12 raises presumption of vacancy of building in circumstances contemplated therein, Section 13 debars any person from occupying any building except on allotment order, Section 14 provides for regularisation of occupation by a tenant or licence of a building, Section 15 obliges a landlord or tenant to intimate the District Magistrate about vacancy of a building, Section 16 provides for allotment and release of vacant building. Similarly Section 20 provides for eviction of a tenant from a building in contingencies enumerated therein. Section 21 confers right on the landlord to move an application before Prescribed Authority to evict a tenant if the building was either bonafide required by him or it was dilapidated and needed reconstruction. It is thus clear that regulation of letting or eviction is contemplated in the Act in relation to a building. And if a building has not completed ten years from the date of its construction and stands excluded from operation of the Act then obviously the provision for filing an application under Section 21 for release also stands excluded. To put it differently a landlord has no right to file an application under Section 21 for release either under Clause (a) or (b) in respect of building which has not come within purview of the Act because of application of Sub -section (2) of Section 2 of the Act.
(3.) A tenant under Section 21 could be evicted on an application of the landlord if he was satisfied that the building was bonafide required or it was in dilapidated condition and was required for demolition and reconstruction. It the building itself stood excluded from operation of the Act (here could not be deemed to be a Prescribed Authority for it who could entertain the application or on application of landlord record his satisfaction. Filing of application before Prescribed Authority of an area to which Act extends in respect of at building which is outside its purview is not a pre -mature application but a futile exercise incapable of setting the machinery in motion which could finally result in recording of satisfaction by the Prescribed Authority as contemplated In Section 21. The entire process beginning from presentation of an application to manner provided under rule specifying the grounds for eviction etc. and its allowing or rejection is linked with cause of action Accruing in favour of landlord on the date when application is presented. If the provisions of Act do not apply then there is no ground available to a landlord which be could specify in the application. An application Under Section 21 is presented Under Section 21(1)(a) or (b) only, 'if the building is bonafide required in its existing form or after demolition and construction by the landlord for reoccupation by himself or any member of his family or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purpose or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust; (b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, when an application is presented the landlord has to show that the building is needed by him. And this need must exist on the date of presentation of application. That is the cause of action must have arisen on the date when application is presented. If the Act did not apply the grounds which could famish cause of action for i presenting of application were non -existent as such the application could not 1 have been presented.;