- (1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THIS matter pertains to the re lease/allotment of an premises, located in Haridwar. The two connected peti tions, one filed by the landlord and the other filed by a person calling himself a 'tenant' of the premises, are being de cided together. These petitions have been pending in this Court for the last almost 20 years and the matter itself pertains to the year 1979. Much water has flown in the Ganges between 1979 and 2008 and presently the buildings or the premises of the present nature which are owned by a public religious or charitable in stitution are, in fact, outside the pur view of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinaf ter referred to as the Act), However, the dispute itself pertains to the period when admittedly the premises was within the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the position is that the building in question is owned and held by a Society which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and claims itself to be a public charitable institution. It would be the landlord of the premises. Proceedings under Section 12 of the Act were ini tiated in order to declare the premises as 'vacant 'way-back in the year 1979 and vide order dated 13-7-1981, the premises were declared as Vacant'. Subsequently thereafter on 31-8-1982 a release application was filed by the landlord under Section 16 of the Act. For the same premises allotment ap plications were also filed by prospec tive allottees, one of them being re spondent no. 5, namely, Suresh Chandra. The contention of the re spondent no. 5 before the allotment authority was that he is the person who has initiated the entire proceed ings of "vacancy" of the premises and he is an Ex- serviceman and wants to open a general merchant shop on the premises. Whereas in its release application, the landlord i. e. the petitioner had stated that it is a public charita ble trust and it wants to open a read ing room/library and a dispensary for public at large and, therefore, the premises must be released in its favour.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the pe titioner-landlord, before this Court, has made primarily three submissions. THE first submission of the learned coun sel for the petitioner-landlord is that the premises in question belongs to a public charitable trust and, hence, it is exempted from the operation of the Act. This submission of the petitioner has no force even though it is true that presently the building has been ex empted from the operation of the Act but this has been done vide an amend ment in the year 1995 by way of U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 which was w. e. f. 26-9-1994. No restropectivity, earlier than this (26-9-1994) has been given to this amendment and the relevant date would be the year when the build ing was declared as vacant under Section 12 of the Act which much pro ceeds the aforesaid amendment. It is a settled position of law that all Stat utes are prospective in nature and in order to give retrospectivity to the Statute, it must be expressly stated in the Statute itself. Since, there is no retrospectivity given to the Statute, the building in question will not be said to be outside the purview of the Act. Therefore, the provision of excluding the said building cannot be referred back to year 1979 or 1983-84, as the case might be.;