- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. The writ petition arises out of a proceeding under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for enhancement of rent in respect of building No. 4/282, Parwati Bagla Road, Kanpur.
(2.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by its order dated 20-12-1993 al lowed the application ex pane and en hanced the rent from Rs. 3211. 52 to Rs. 11, 000/- per month. THE tenant petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter remanded vide judgment and order dated 13-1-1995 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for decision afresh. During the pendency of the appeal afores- tated, the buildings with the monthly rent exceeding Rs. 2, 000 were taken out from the purview of the Act as per clause (g) of Section 2 (1) inserted in the Principal Act vide Section 2 of the U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 with effect from 26-9-1994, the date on which the Ordinance preceding U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 was promulgated. THE tenant petitioner moved an application dated 11 -4-1995 before the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer and raised a preliminary ob jection that in view of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995, the building stood exempted from the purview of the Act and, therefore, the application under Section 21 (8) was liable to be rejected as not maintainable and prayed that the issue regarding main tainability and jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer refused, vide order dated 15-5-1995, to decide the issue as a prelimi nary one and directed the petitioner to file his reply in respect of the application under Section 21 (8) so that the issues in volved in the case be decided together. THE appeal preferred against the said order having been rejected by the learned Addi tional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar vide order, dated 9-1-1996 as not maintainable, the tenant has filed the instant writ peti tion for quashing the orders aforestated. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that after insertion of clause (g) in Section 2 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (vide Section 2 of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995), the proceedings pending under Section 21 (8) of the Act for enhancement of rent in respect of buildings fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 2, 000 automatically came to an end in that such buildings stood ex empted from the provisions of the Act with effect from 26-9-1994 and the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer thereafter ceased to have any jurisdiction to proceed with the application under Section 21 (8) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12537 of 1996 (Punjab National Bank Branch K. Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and another) decided on 21-8-1996 holding that even pending proceedings under Section 21 (8) in respect of a building fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 2, 000 would come to an end upon insertion of clause (g) in Section 2 (1) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondents urged that U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 would not affect the pending proceedings under Section 21 (8) of the Act and that such proceedings would con tinue to be disposed of as if the Amending Act had not come into force. I have carefully examined that question raised at the Bar as also the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Normally a petition, against an interlocutory order which does not decide any controversy between the parties, is not entertained, but the Counsel for the parties insisted for a decision on the question raised as the Bar in that the ques tion raised is jurisdictional one and there fore, they pursuaded the Court to enter tain the petition, j
(3.) THE Act was enacted by the State Legislature in the interest of general public, to provide for regularisation of let ting and rent of, and the eviction of tenants from, certain classes of buildings situated in urban areas, and for the matters con nected therewith. Section 20 (1) of the Act bars civil suit for eviction of a tenant, save as provided in sub-section (2), from a building governed by the Act not withstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on expiration of a notice to wait or in any other manner and in this way it abrogates the common law rights of a landlord. Section 21 which gives right of re-entry to the landlord and permits evic tion of a tenant from the building under his tenancy on grounds specified therein is quoted below in so far as it is relevant for the purposes of discussion in the present case: "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exist namely - (a) that the building is bonafide required either in existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation 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 purpose of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of trust; ***** (8) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector Corporation or to a recognised educa tional institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a per son to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable: Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent pay able therefor to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the build ing under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the ap plication: Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement. ";