S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is landlord's writ petition. Building in dispute is in tenancy occupation of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, U.P. Board of Basic Education, Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Allahabad and Superintendent of Basic Education (Girls) Nagar Kshetra, Allahabad. In the building in dispute a school is being run. Original landlord petitioner, since deceased and survived by legal representatives filed suit (SCC Suit No. 115 of 1982) against tenants-respondents 2 to 4 for eviction. In the plaint it was alleged that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U.P. Urban Buildings, (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act) was not applicable to the building in dispute and that rate of rent was Rs. 75/- per month. Tenants pleaded that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable on the building in dispute. Trial Court accepted the contention of the landlord that the Act was not applicable to the building in dispute, hence the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed by Judge Small Causes Court Allahabad on 27.8.1984. Against the said judgment and decree the tenants respondents filed Civil Revision No. 340 of 1984. Revision Court/Xlth A.D.J., Allahabad placing reliance upon Full Bench decision of this Curt reported in Punjab National Bank v. S. Chandra, 1985 (1) ARC 215 , held that by virtue of different Ordinances and ultimately by U.P. Act No. 17 of 1985, U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in dispute. As no ground of eviction, as mentioned under Section 20(2) of the Act had been taken in the plaint, hence Revisional Court allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 12.1.1988. This writ petition by the landlord is directed against the said judgment of the Revisional Court dated 12.1.1988.
(2.) As a school is being run in the accommodation in dispute, hence, I made strenuous efforts for settling the dispute through compromise. Different orders in this regard were passed by me on 8.9.2005, 4.10.2005 and 17.10.2005 but of no avail.
(3.) As far as the merit of the petition is concerned, the Full Bench Authority of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra), on which reliance was placed by the Revisional Court has been overruled by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. M.Z. Khalid, AIR 1988 SC 132 : 1988 (1) ARC 1. The Supreme Court has held that in between 5.7.1976 and 18.5.1983, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in which Government or local authority was tenant. By virtue of Section 2(1 )(a) which was added through U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976, with effect from 5.7.1976, Act was not applicable to public building, which was defined to be 'any building belonging to or taken on lease by State Government or local authority'. The said position continued till 18.5.1983, when U.P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 was promulgated. Thereafter four more Ordinances were promulgated and ultimately through U.P. Act No. 17 of 1985, it was added in the Act with effect from 18.5.1983 that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply to the buildings in which Government or local authority was tenant but not to the buildings of which Government or local authority was landlord. This was done by amending Section 2(1)(a) of the Act.;