JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:— The Civil appeals as well as the special leave petitions raise a common question as to whether the povisions of the Uttar Pradesh. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are applicable to cantonments situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Since the two civil appeals are already pending on the issue, we grant special leave in the special leave petitions as well and proceed to dispose of all the four matters by this common judgment. The main Judgment of the High Court under consideration is that in the case of Brij Sunder Kapoor v. Addl. District Judge reported in 1980 All Ren Cas 319 which answered the question in the affirmative. The Allahabad High Court has reiterated the same view in its later decision in Lekh Raj v. 4th Addl. Dt. Judge. Meerut, AIR 1982 All 265, which we are told, is also under appeal to this Court.

2. It is sufficient to set out certain brief facts in the matter of Brij Sunder Kapoor (C.A., No. 2606 of 1980) in order to appreciate the question of law that arises for consideration. Jhansi is a cantonment in Uttar Pradesh. Brij Sunder Kapoor is a tenant of presmises No. 103, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi of which respondent No. 3 Rhagwan Das Gupta is the landlord. In 1975, the landlord Bhagwan Das Gupta filed an application before the prescribed authority under Section 21 of the Act praying that he needed the above premises for his personal occupation and that the same may be released to him. The tenant contested the application. The application was dismissed by the prescribed authority but allowed, on appeal by the Additional District Judge. The tenant preferred a writ petition which has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court and hence the present appeal. We are not concerned with the factual aspects of the controversy between the parties. The short point urged by learned counsel before us, which is common to all these appeals and which was also argued unsuccessfully, before the High Court, was that the Act did not apply to contaminants in Uttar Pradesh and that, therefore, the order of, release made, by the appellate authority under Section 21 of the said Act was a nullity.

3. In order to appreciate the point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to set out at some length the history of tenancy legislation in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In this State, rent and eviction control legislation was initiated by the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Ordinance promulgated on 1-10-1946. This Ordinance was followed by U. P. Act III of 1947 which was made retrospective with effect from 1-10-1946. Both the Act and the Ordinance applied to cantonment areas as well as other parts of the State. Subsequently, the above Act was amended by U. P. (Amendment) Act 44 of 1948. By this Act. cantonment areas were excluded from the purview of Act III of 1947. This amendment was introduced perhaps as it was felt that the cantonment areas were to be governed by the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 and that the simultaneous application of Act III of 1947 to cantonment areas may create problems.

4. It appears that, subsequently, a number of representations were made by residents of cantonments for extending the provisions of Act III of 1947 to cantonment areas as well. Perhaps because of such representations, U.P. Ordinance 5 of 1949 was promulgated on 25th September, 1949. But this Ordinance was allowed to lapse. In the meantime the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ahmadi Begam v. District Magistrate, Agra, 1951 All LJ 669 took the view that the State Legislature was incompetent to regulate accommodation lying in cantonments since that was a subject on which Parliament alone was competent to legislate, a view which has subsequently been approved by this Court in Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundri Devi, (1970) 1 SCR 443. Thereupon, Parliament enacted the U