Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) This petition which should normally have been decided by a learned single Judge is before us since when it came up for hearing before N. D. Ojha, J. he was of the opinion that the questions involved in the case were of considerable importance and not free from difficulty and he consequently thought it desirable that it may be decided by a Division Bench.
(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition are that previously one Manohar Lal and Nirmal Kumar were the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute. At a court auction the petitioner purchased the property in question. By means of registered dend dated 20th March, 1948 the then landlords had leased out the premises to the tenants-opposite parties. One of the terms of the registered lease deed was that the tenants shall not be liable to ejectment at the instance of the landlords, except on the ground that they were in arrears of rent for a full year. Having stepped into the shoes of the landlords, the petitioner applied under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act -- before the Prescribed Authority for an order of eviction of the tenants-opposite parties from the building under their tenancy. They resisted the petitioner's claim by raising a preliminary legal objection to the effect that by reason of Section 21 (4) of the Act, the petitioner-landlord had no right to obtain an order for their eviction. The Prescribed Authority held that under the terms of the lease, the opposite parties could be evicted only if one year's rent remained unpaid and there was no provision in the registered lease deed under which eviction could be ordered on the ground of the landlord's personal need. The Prescribed Authority consequently upheld the objection of the opposite parties and rejected the application under Section 21 holding that it was not legally maintainable. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority which was dismissed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Kanpur. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the learned Third Additional District Judge, Kanpur, the petitioner had filed this writ petition praying for a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 18th May, 1973 and 28th September, 1974 passed by opposite-parties Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) Before the learned single Judge, the orders passed by the authorities under the Act were supported by the tenants-opposite parties, who contended that under the terms of the lease dated 20th March, 1948 they were not liable to be ejected from the accommodation in question except on the ground of non-payment of rent for full one year. It was urged that the provision in the lease deed which gave immunity to the tenants from being evicted from the premises leased to them except on the ground of default in payment of rent for a year was a covenant running with the land and the petitioner who was the successor-in-interest of the previous landlords was bound by that covenant. On behalf of the petitioner, it was urged by the learned counsel that the law regarding covenants running with the land was codified in the T. P. Act and since in view of Section 2 (d) thereof the provisions of this Act save as provided by Section 57 and Chap. IV thereof did not apply to a purchaser at a court auction, the petitioner was not bound by the aforesaid term of the lease even though the covenant contained therein may be one running with the land. It was further urged that if the main provisions of the T. P. Act do not apply the principles thereof also could not apply and in support of his contention, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decisions of this Court in Nannu Mal v. Ram Chander (AIR 1931 All 277) and Lalta Prasad v. Brahmanand (AIR 1953 All 449). Another submission made in the alternative before the learned single Judge by the counsel for the petitioner was that assuming that the term of the lease was binding on the petitioner, its legal efficacy had been obliterated by the statutory provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act inasmuch as the said section entitled the petitioner to evict the tenant in case he bona fide needed the accommodation for his own use. The term in the lease deed, it was submitted, being in conflict with Section 21 (1) (a) became inoperative. The learned single Judge was tentatively of the view that the submission made in the alternative was without any substance. Since the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the question as to whether the covenant contained in the lease relied upon by the tenants bound the petitioner or not and as to whether it afforded the tenants immunity from eviction in proceedings under Section 21 of the Act except on the ground specified therein required consideration by a larger Bench, he referred the entire case to a larger Bench.;