J. C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's counsel.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition against the order of the lower appellate authority remanding the case for a decision on merits of the application moved under Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 by the landlord. The said application was moved before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, a delegated authority of the District Magistrate, who rejected the application for enhancement of rent merely on the ground that since the accommodation in question is in the tenancy of the petitioner, a registered society, the same was not maintainable under the provision of Section 21 (8) of the Act. The landlord filed appeal against the said order and the same has been allowed by the impugned order.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to support the order of the District Magistrate whereby the application of the landlord for enhancement of rent moved under Section 21 (8) of the Act was rejected as not maintainable. He argued that since the petitioner is a registered society owned by State Government, hence the provision of Section 21 (8) of the Act would not be applicable to the petitioner's case. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. Interpretation of Section 21 (8), its proviso and Section 21 (1) (a) and of deletion of clauses (ii) and (iv) of Explanation to Section 21 (1) (a) came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Chaudhary and another v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1982 (1) ARC 441 and it was held that with the deletion of clauses (ii) and (iv) of the Explanation, proviso of Section 21 (8) has not become meaningless or in-effective. The effect of deletion of the clauses is that an application under Section 21 (1) (a) cannot be moved in respect of the building described in the first part of Section 21 (8) of the Act but not that an application for enhancement for rent under the proviso of the said Section would also be not maintainable. Undisputedly, the District Magistrate did not go into the merits of the claim of the landlord for the enhancement of the rent and had rejected the application only on a technical ground of non-maintainability, therefore, the lower appellate court was fully justified in remanding the case for a decision on merits.;