A. P. Misra, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THE applicant has challenged the order dated 5th April, 1984 by means of the present revision by virtue of which the suit of the plaintiff-applicants for ejectment of the defendants and for recovery of Rs. 3360/- as damages for use and occupation was dismissed. However, the suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and water tax was decreed. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that all issues though were decided in their favour but the court committed an error in holding that the premises in question is covered under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1973), and also in holding that the notice given to the defendants determining the tenancy was invalid. It was contended by the applicants that since the premises in question is public building within the meaning of section 3 (o) of Act no. 13 of 1972 the said building is exempt from the operation of the Act under section 2 (1) of the Act no. 13 of 1972 and thus the finding to the contrary recorded by the courts below is illegal. It was also urged benefit of U. P. Ordinance no. 28 of 1983 and U. P. Ordinance no. 8 of 1984 were not retrospective in operation and they could not be applied to the present case since the Ordinance came into force much after the present suit was filed. In support of this he relied upon two decisions of this Court, viz., State of U. P. v. G. C. Gupta, 1983 AWC 458 and Rang Nath v. State of U. P., 1984 AWC 415 (DB).
(3.) THE question is no more open to the applicants as the matter stands concluded by a Full Bench decision of this court in Punjab National Bank v. Sugan Chandra, 1985 AWC 130. It has been held in that case that Ordinance 28 of 1983 in effect only clears the doubts, which arose on account of various decisions by the courts and makes explicit the legislative intention behind the enactment which was latent. It also holds that the law which is declaratory in nature takes the retrospective effect. Apart from this, this Full Bench very explicitly makes the legal position clear about the position of the State Government, the local authority as tenant vis-a-vis the old U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 and the present Act No. 13 of 1972. THE relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted below : ".........This is to say, a landlord who sought to evict Government had necessarily to proceed upon any of the grounds enumerated in section 20 or in accordance with procedure laid in section 21 of this Act......" It is also relevant that the aforesaid decision State of U. P. v. G. C. Gupta (supra) relied by the applicant was specifically overruled by Punjab National Bank (supra). In view of this, finding recorded by the trial court that the building would not be except from the operation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 wherein the defendants v. State of U. P. and the Regional Food Controller of Gorakhpur region Gorakhpur are tenants of the applicants-landlords are held to be correct and valid.;