S.D.Agarwala - (1.) -This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the tenant of a premises, situate in Allahabad. Mahanarain Mishra, respondent no. 4, is the landlord of the premises in dispute. The landlord has applied for release of the accommodation under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.
(2.) THE sole question which has been convassed in the writ petition is that section 3 (e) of the Act which defines a 'Prescribed Authority' is ultra vires the Constitution of India and hence the application under section 21 of the Act, filed before the Prescribed Authority, cannot proceed and is not maintainable. The Act mentioned above provides for the regulation of letting and rent of, and the eviction of tenant from, certain classes of buildings situate in urban areas and for matters connected therewith. In regard to the release of an accommodation which is in occupation of a tenant the scheme of the Act is that the landlord can file an application under section 21 of the Act before a Prescribed Authority on the grounds mentioned in section 21 of the Act. Against the decision of the Prescribed Authority an appeal can be filed under section 22 of the Act. Once the order becomes final by the order of the appellate authority then the eviction order can be enforced under section 23 of the Act. In the instant petition the challenge is to the constitution of the Prescribed Authority. Section 3 (e) was originally in the following terms :- " "Prescribed Authority" means a Magistrate of the First Class having experience as such of not less than three years authorised by the District Magistrate to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the Prescribed Authority under this Act, and different - Magistrates may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases, served on the assessee-petitioner for the first time. In view of the aforesaid decision, in my opinion, the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has also got no force. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. 11. The interim order dated 22-4-1980 passed in this case is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed. and the District Magistrate may recall any case from any such Magistrate and may either dispose of it himself or transfer it for disposal to any other such Magistrate. " This definition was amended by U. P. Act 19 of 1974. After the amendment by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1974 section 3 (e) reads as follows :- " fa) 'Prescribed Authority' means an officer having not less than 3 years experience as Munsif or as Magistrate of the First Class or as Executive Magistrate authorised by general or special order of the State Government to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the Prescribed Authority under this Act, and different officers may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases, or classes of cases. " Section 3 (e) was again amended by U. P. Act 28 of 1976. After this amendment section 3 (e) reads as follows :- " "Prescribed Authority" means a Civil Judicial Officer or Judicial Magistrate authorised by the District Judge to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the prescribed authority under this Act, and different such officers may be so authorised in respect of different areas or cases or classes of cases, and the District Judge may recall any case from any such officer and may transfer it for disposal to any other such officer. " The definition of section 3 (e) after the amendment of U. P. Act 28 of 1976 is still in existence and it is this section 3 (e) of the Act of which the validity has been challenged.
(3.) BEFORE embarking upon the question which has been urged in this petition it is necessary to examine the competence of the State Legislature to pass this Act itself. List II of the 7th Schedule which is State List, Entry 18 is as follows :- " 18. Land, that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents ; transfer and alienation of agricultural land ; land improvement and agricultural loans ; colonization. " The other relevant entry is Entry 6 in List III of the 7th Schedule which is the concurrent list. Entry 18 clearly lays down that the State Legislature has authority to make law in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Entry 6 of List III gives even a wider jurisdiction to the State Legislature as rights between lessor and lessee are covered within the subject of Transfer of Property. In the circumstances, in my opinion the State Legislature is fully competent to enact the present Act with reference to Entry 18 of List II read with Entry 6 of List III. The U. P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the old Act' was also challenged in this Court in Raman Das v. The State of U. P., AIR 1952 Alld. 703. The Full Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the old Act and held as follows :- '' Coming back to the Act itself and to the Government of India Act, 1935, though the Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act may not have been passed under Item No. 9 of List II relating to compulsory acquisition we see no reason why it cannot come under Item No. 21 of List II which gives the Legislature power to enact laws regulating the relationship of landlords and tenants. It is true that the item begins with the word 'land' that it to say, rights in or over land and land tenures, but learned counsel has not contended that the word 'land' in this item is not wide enough to include bouse or house property. Besides this item, we have also in list III item no. 8 which allows legislation with respect to transfer of property. The Transfer of Property Act contains various sections like section 106 onwards relating to leases of immovable property. We are, therefore, not satisfied that the Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act of 1947 was not within the legislative competence of the U. P. Legislature. " The principle which has been laid down in regard to the old Act would also apply to this Act and consequently the present Act cannot possibly be questioned on the ground of legislative competence. The State Legislature had the competence to pass the present Act. Section 3 (e) of the Act quoted above has been challenged by learned counsel on two main grounds. The first submission is that section 3 (e) of the Act is ultra vires Article 235 of the Constitution of India. The submission in effect is that it is only the High Court which has the power to confer authority on a judicial officer to perform the functions of the Prescribed Authority and the State Legislature does not have that power as Article 245 of the Constitution is subject to Article 235 of the Constitution.;