- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Union of India is a tenant of the premises in dispute. It has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 31-1-1997 and 8-12-19981 in proceeding under Section 21 (8) of the U. P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short ). FACTs
(2.) THE Union Government Central Excise and Customs New Delhi is the tenant of the premises in dispute. THE rate of the tenancy was Rupees 1500 per month. Initially landlord filed an applica tion under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of the personal need. This application was ultimately dismissed on 30-4-19982 on the ground that no application could be filed against Central Govt. u/s. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. It was during this case that present application under Section 21 (8) of the Act was filed. This application was allowed on 31-1-19973 enhancing rent from Rupees 1500 per month to Rupees 21,000 per month. THE Central Government filed an appeal against this order. This was partly allowed on 8-12-1998. 4 THE rent was fixed at Rupees 19,500 per month. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. POINT FOR DETERMINATIOn I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5 Following points are for consideration: "whether any proceeding for enhance ment of rent can be taken under Section 21 (8) of the Act in respect of building which is under the tenancy of the Central Government? FINDINg Section 21 (8)6 envisages proceed ing for enhancement of rent in building 1. Annexures 3 and 4 to writ petition. 2. Annexure 1 to the writ "petition. 3. Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 4. Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
(3.) SRI Uma Kant was appeared for the petitioner Central Government. SRI Ravi Kiran Jain. Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Madhu Tandon appeared for respondent-caveators. SRI Ravi Kiran Jain stated that in view of the fact that question of law is involved the does not wish to file any counter-affidavit and argued the case a fresh stage. The relevant part of the Section 21 is as follows : 21. Proceeding for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (8) Nothing in clause (a) of sub- section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution unless the prescribed authority is satisfied that the land-lord is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable ; Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the land- lord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefor to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten percent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application: Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made alter the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement. where the State Government, Public Sector Corporation or recognised education al institution is a tenant. The Central Government is not mentioned therein. No proceeding for enhancement of rent can be taken against the Central Government u/ S. 21 (8) of the Act. The entire proceedings of the Court below are illegal. The judg ments enhancing the rent are also without jurisdiction and are hereby set aside. AN OBSERVATIOn 5. The Courts below in enhancing the rent took into account the decision given by the Prescribed Authority on 30th April, 1998 holding that no application against Central Government is maintainable under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. They, to some extent were influenced by it. The Counsel for respondents states that an appeal is pending against that order. I do not wish except to say anything that the prescribed authority in that case had taken that view on the basis of a judgment of the Apex Court, State of U. P v. Mallik Jarid Knalid1. That judgment was concerned with Section 2 (a) of the Act as it stood at that time. Since then, Section 2 (a) has been amended2. The decision of the Apex Court may not apply. CONCLUSIOn 6. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31-1-1997 and 8-12-1997 are quashed. Petition allowed. 1. AIR 1988 SC 132. ; 2. Old Section 2 (l) (a) as substituted by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 is as follows- 2. Exemption from the operation of the Act : (1) Nothing in ;this Act shall apply to (a) Any Public building, or Section 3 (i) of the Act was as follows : 3 (o) "public building" means any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a Slate Government (including the Government of any other State), and includes any building belonging to of taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation ; Section 2 (l) (a) of the Act as it stands today is as follows : , 2. Exemption from operation of Act- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following namely- (a) any building of which the Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation or a Cantonment Board is the land-lord; .;