Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition filed against the order of the District Judge allowing the tenant's appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 but the same was dismissed on February 24, 1970. The application had been moved on the ground of personal need of the landlord. After the commencement of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 the Petitioner moved an application on September 11, 1972 under Section 21 of the Act. In this application also he sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his personal need. The Prescribed Authority decided in favour of the landlord. On appeal the District Judge has reversed that finding and dismissed the application.
(2.) ONE of the grounds on which the learned District Judge has held against the Petitioner is the rule of evidence given in Rule 18 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. This is clear from the judgment even though the learned District Judge has not mentioned the provision. Section 43(2)(i) provides: Any order passed by the District Magistrate before the commencement of this Act, granting or refusing to grant permission under Section 3 of the old Act, against which no revision has been filed, shall - (i) if such order was made more than thirty days before the commencement of this Act, be final;.... Rule 18 provides: Where an application of a landlord against any tenant for permission to file a suit for eviction under Section 3 of the old Act, on any ground mentioned in Section 21(1) has been finally allowed or rejected on merits either before or after the commencement of the Act...and the landlord instead of filing a suit for eviction makes as application under Section 21 on the same grounds within a period of six months from such decision or from the commencement of the Act, whichever is later, the Prescribed Authority shall accept the findings in those proceedings as conclusive.... The application under Section 3 of the old Act had admittedly been made by the Petitioner and that had been dismissed on merits. The present application has been moved under Section 21 within a period of six months from the commencement of the new Act. The order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Act shows that the earlier application had been moved by the Petitioner on the same ground on which the present application has been moved, viz., the need of the landlord to occupy the building. In respect of this ground the findings of the District Magistrate had to be accepted by the Prescribed Authority as conclusive. He committed a manifest error of law in proceeding to determine the question again on merits. The District Judge was right in setting aside that finding and holding that the matter was concluded. After this finding it was not necessary for even the District Judge to proceed to determine the question of needs of the parties on merits. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Rule 18 is ultra vires. The contention of the learned Counsel is that the rule making power does not permit the making of such a rule. I do not find any merit in this contention. The rule -making power is given in Section 41 of the Act in very wide terms. It provides: The State Government may by notification in the Gazette make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act, including any rules prescribing fees in respect of any proceeding under this Act. As already quoted, Section 43 of the Act gives finality to the order of the District Magistrate passed under Section 3 of the old Act. Rule 18 is only a rule of evidence providing that the findings in the proceedings under Section 3 shall be conclusive on the grounds mentioned in Section 21 of the Act if they were the same as were raised under Section 3 of the Act. Rule 18 thus provides, in effect, a rule to carry out the purposes of the Act, the determination of the question as to whose need is greater when an application under Section 21 of the Act is moved is necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The rule cannot thus be said to be beyond the rulemaking power given in the Act.
(3.) THE judgment of the learned District Judge cannot, therefore, be held to suffer from any manifest error of law.;