The provisions of Section 2(2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) are not retrospective and apply to buildings constructed both before and after the coming into force of the Act.

( 1 ) THIS Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following question :-

"whether the provisions of Section 2 (2) are applicable only to buildings which are brought into existence after the coming into force of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or they are applicable also to buildings constructed prior thereto?"

( 2 ) IN Suit No. 1440 of 1976 brought by plaintiff-respondent for ejectment of the defendant-petitioner the question raised was whether the plaintiff-respondents was entitled to get the decree for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed house without complying with the requirements of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972 ). The allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiff were that as the disputed house had been constructed in the year 1971, the provisions of the aforesaid Act did not apply and that they were entitled to get the decree for ejectment against the defendant petitioner. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that the house had been constructed in the year 1960 and, as such the plaintiff respondent, could not get the decree without removing the bar for eviction on the grounds specified in Sub-section (21 of section 2 of the Act. On the pleadings of the parties Judge, Small Causes framed the issue: whether the constructions are of 1971 or of 1980? the Judge, Small Causes held that the house had been constructed in October, 1971 and decreed the suit. The revision carried against the said judgment by the defendant petitioner under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act failed. Thereupon, the defendant petitioner filed the present writ.

( 3 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, the question was that the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applied to all the buildings constructed before 16th July, 1972 and. as such, the decree for eiectment granted against the petitioner was illegal. The submission made further was that the exemption provided for in Sub- section (2) of Section 2 applied only to buildings which had been constructed after the coming into force of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Hence, the disputed building having been constructed in 1971, the suit of the plaintiff respondent, was liable to fail. For the above submission, petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ratan lal Singhal v. Smt. Marti Devi 1979 All LR 595: (AIR 1980 SC 635 ).

( 4 ) ON behalf of plaintiff-respondents 2 and 3, the argument made was that Sub-section (2) of section 2 exempted a building constructed during a period of ten years from the date on which the construction was completed irrespective of the fact as to when the construction actually had been made. For the plaintiff respondents, reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Swarup Rai v. Smt. Lilawati Devi (1980 All LR 359): (1980 All LJ 651 ).

( 5 ) BEING of opinion that the controversy raised in the writ petition was required to be decided by a larger Bench, Hon. A. N. Verma, J. referred the question mentioned above for decision by a larger Bench. Thereafter, the case was listed before the Division Bench of Hon. N. D. Ojha and hon. K. N. Dayal, JJ.

( 6 ) BEFORE mentioning as to what transpired before the Division Bench, it may be useful here to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal v. Smt. Marti Devi (AIR 1980 SC 635) (supra ). In that case, the appeal had been preferred against the judgment of the High Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for eiectment. The landlord of the said case had claimed that as the building had been constructed within the period of ten years of the filing of the suit, the same was entitled to be given exemption from the operation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, This plea found favour with the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the argument was that Sub-section (2) of Section 2 did not apply to buildings constructed prior to the enforcement of U. P.