B.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who is a tenant of the accommodation in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- has impugned the judgment dated 3.2.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, by which he has allowed the landlords' application for release of the accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and against the judgment dated 19.8.1995 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was upheld.
(2.) CERTAIN relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition may be stated. That the owner landlord, respondents 3 to 5 filed in the Court of the Prescribed Authority release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on 9.1.1990. The averments made in paragraph 3 of the application are also to the effect that, on account of default as well as for making material alterations in the building, the applicants have terminated the petitioner's tenancy by giving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 17.5.1989, and, after expiry of the period mentioned in the notice, a suit has also been filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes. It is suit No. 49 of 1989. The admitted position in the application is also this that the petitioner was occupying the premises as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. The case of the landlord respondents was contested by the petitioner on various grounds. The parties led evidence before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority, on merits, decided the case in favour of the owner landlords by its judgment dated 3.2.1993. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act. The appeal came up for hearing before the Xth Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. Before the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application before the appellate authority stating therein that, during the pendency of the appeal, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1994 came into force with effect from 26.9.1994. By this ordinance, the buildings, whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2,000/-, were exempted from the operation of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It was also said that the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act are procedural inasmuch as "the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at the time when it is hearing the proceedings before it and modify the relief in the light of those events". It was, therefore, stated that since procedural law is retrospective in operation and will apply to the pending cases, the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act pending the appeal stage will be regulated by the above amending ordinance and the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act should be dismissed. The appellate Court while dealing with this aspect of the controversy held that looking to the provisions of the Amending Act it will not affect the applications under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The appellate Court, in this manner, proceeded to decide the appeal on merit as if the building was still being regulated by the provisions of the Act and dismissed the petitioner's appeal by judgment dated 19.8.1995. It is against these judgments that the present writ petition has been preferred.
(3.) THE writ petition raises the ground that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction as the learned Additional District Judge has not taken notice of the subsequent events i.e. amended provisions of the Act whereby all buildings fetching rent more than Rs. 2,000/- per month have been exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Act and as such the release application was liable to be dismissed. The other ground taken in the writ petition in furtherance of the ground is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1995 SCFBRC 311 (SC) : 1995(1) RCR 591(SC), Parripati Chandrasekharrao v. Alapati Jalaiah, has, while dealing with identical situation relating to a case under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, held that the protection given under the Rent Control Act does not create any vested right which may validly be pleaded to support the landlord's case is not available to the tenant. When the protection does not exist, then the normal relations of the landlord and tenant comes into operation. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the writ petition is liable to succeed and the impugned judgments passed by the prescribed authority and the learned Additional District Judge are liable to be quashed leaving it open to the landlord to pursue his remedy under the General Law.;