K. J. SHETTY, C. J.

( 1 ) A Division Bench of this Court has referred this case to a Larger Bench while doubting the correctness of the decision in Vinaya Kumar v. District Supply Officer, 1980 0 Alllj 462. The question raised lies in a narrow compass and it arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) SRI Trilok Chandra, petitioner is the owner of the land which is under occupation of the tenant-respondent 2. The land was given under a lease dated May 10, 1948 for a period of 10 years. The rent payable thereunder was Rs. 25/- per month. The tenant was at liberty to raise construction but must remove the same and deliver vacant possession of the land to landlord after the term of the lease. The original lease was entered into by respondent 2 with the father of petitioner. Later on there was a family settlement by which the land came to be allotted against the share of petitioner who became the owner thereof.

( 3 ) PETITIONER moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for determining the annual rent payable in respect of the land. The application was filed under Sub-Sec. (5) of S. 29-A, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 ("act" for short ). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer upon hearing the parties rejected the application on the ground that there has been an agreement between parties for payment of rent in respect of the land and, therefore, the landlord has no right to have the annual rent determined. He has, however, recorded a finding that the original lease which was of the year 1948 has expired in 1958.

( 4 ) CHALLENGING the validity of the order of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, petitioner has preferred the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) BEFORE examining the contention urged for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to provisions under which the landlord wants to have annual rent of the land determined. Originally the Act did not cover vacant land. It regulated letting, rent and eviction of only building. The tenant in possession of a land where he had erected permanent structure was left high and dry. He had no protection from eviction. In 1976, legislature stepped in to give protection even to such tenants. Section 29-A has been introduced by U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 28 of 1976 ). It was brought into force with effect from July 5, 1976.

( 6 ) SUB-SEC. (2) of S. 29-A provides that the Section would apply only to land let out, where the tenant, with the landlords consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in execution thereof. Sub-Section (3) extends to such tenants protection similar to those available to a tenant occupying any building. Sub-Sections (4) and (5) are crucial to this case. They are as follows :-" (4) The tenant of any land to which this Section applies shall be liable to pay to the landlord such rent as may be mutually agreed upon between the parties, and in the absence of agreement, the rent determined in accordance with Sub-S. (5 ). (5) The District Magistrate shall on the application of the landlord or the tenant determine the annual rent payable in respect of such land at the rate of ten per cent per annum of the prevailing market value of the land, and such rent shall be payable, except as provided in Sub-Sec. (6) from the date of expiration of the term for which the land was let or from the commencement of this Section. whichever is later. "

( 7 ) THE next Sub-Section of importance is Sub-S. (7 ). It reads :-" (7) The provisions of this Section shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any contract or instrument or in any other law for the time being in force. "

( 8 ) THE question raised in this petition relates to the right of petitioner under Sub-Ss. (4) and (5) of S. 29-A. For petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, Senior Advocate contended that the parties after coming into force of S. 29-A have not mutu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document