K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Distt. Supply Officer, Rampur, allotting the premises in question to Jalil Ahmad Khan as well as against the order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Rampur, dismissing the revision and upholding the order of allotment.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a shop situate at Bazar Nasar Ullah Khan in the city of Rampur. Admittedly, the shop is one of the five shops which is waqf property of a Mosque of which Idris Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate, is the Mutwalli. The shop in dispute was in the tenancy of one Rahat Jan. He died somewhere in September 1975. After his death Irfan Ahmad, the Petitioner, occupied the shop with the consent of the Mutwalli on payment of Rs. 25/ - as rent without obtaining any order of allotment in January 1976. One Jalil Ahmad Khan made an application before the District Supply Officer, Rampur, who was exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for the allotment of the shop in question. The Rent Control Inspector under the orders of the District Supply Officer made inspection and submitted his report to the effect that Irfan Ahmad was in occupation of the shop in question and was carrying on his business with the consent of the landlord. The District Supply Officer thereupon invited objections from the landlord and Irfan Ahmad, the Petitioner. Both of them filed objections and claimed that the shop in question was newly constructed and it was not subject to the province of the Act and, further since Irfan Ahmad was tenant in occupation of the shop with the consent of the landlord, there was no vacancy and no allotment order could be made. Jalil Ahmad Khan, the prospective allottee contested the claim of the landlord and Irfan Ahmad. After holding an enquiry the District Supply Officer by his order dated 14 -7 -1976 rejected the contention of the landlord as well as that of the Petitioner and allotted the shop in question to Jalil Ahmad Khan. Irfan Ahmad and the landlord both preferred revision applications under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Rampur. The revisions were dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Rampur by his order dated 19 -8 -1976 and the allotment order was held valid. Aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the District Supply Officer as well as that of the Ist Additional District Judge, Rampur. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that since the Petitioner was in occupation of the shop in question with the consent of the landlord on 5th July 1976, namely the date on which U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 (U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act 1976) was enforced his occupation stood regularised and for the purposes of the Act he was a tenant of the shop under Section 14 of the Act and as such there was no vacancy consequently, the District Supply Officer had no jurisdiction to issue any allotment order in favour of Jalil Ahmad Khan.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent, urged that since proceedings for the eviction of the Petitioner were pending against him under Section 16 of the Act on 5th July 1976, the Petitioner's occupation was not regularised and he could not be held to be the tenant of the shop in question under Section 14 of the Act. The Act was amended by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction (Amendment) Act 1976 (U.P. Act 28 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act). The Amending Act received the assent of the President on 1st July 1976 and it was published in U.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated July 5, 1976, the date on which it came into force. After its amendment Section 14 is in the following terms: Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building. The above provision was enacted by the Legislature to grant relief to the licensees and to regularise the occupation of the licensees and existing tenants who may have been in possession of the premises with the consent of the landlord but without any allotment order in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 14 lays down that a person who may be in occupation of the building with the consent of the landlord as a tenant or as a licensee before the commencement of the Amending Act 1976, i.e. before the 5th July. 1976 shall be deemed to be a licensee or tenant of such building but no such person shall get this benefit if any suit or proceeding for his eviction was pending before any court or authority on the date of the commencement of the Amending Act 1976. Thus, the benefit granted to the licensees or the tenants who may be occupying the building with the consent of the landlord was not available to those persons against whom a suit or proceeding for their eviction was pending on 5th July, 1976.;