Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties. To appreciate the controversy involved in both the writ petitions, facts are noted from the leading case i.e. writ petition No.19926 of 1995 which will suffice.

2. Raising a short controversy, the present writ petition is on behalf of a permanent lessee in whose favour a lease has been created by means of a registered lease deed dated 17.4.1916 in respect of a vacant piece of land whereupon shops No. 848 and 848 (1) are situate at Nayaganj (Girbarganj), Bulandshahr.

3. Whether Section 29-A of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) is applicable to an unexpired lease of land is the only question in these two writ petitions.

4. An application under Section 29-A (5) of the Act was filed by the landlord respondent No. 2 herein, for determination of rent payable under aforesaid Section 29-A of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by the petitioner (tenant) herein. It is admitted case of the parties that the present petitioner is a lessee under a registred lease deed dated 17.4.1916 executed by Badri Kishan and Girbar Kishan in favour of Khichchu Mal, the father of the petitioner Roshan Lal Mittal, at the rate of 12 Anna per month i.e. Rs. 9/- per annum. On the death of Khichchu Mal, the tenancy right has been devolved on the present petitioner. An application was filed for fixing the monthly rent at Rs. 3,592-50 paise as per the formula laid down under Section 29-A of the said Act. The enhanced rent was claimed w.e.f. 1.8.1976. though the application was filed in the year 1993. In rebuttal, besides other pleas, it was pleaded by the petitioner that the provisions of Section 29-A (5) of the Act are not attracted to a lease whose term has not yet expired.

5. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer/Deputy District Magistrate, Sikandrabad, by the order dated 26.5.1995, allowed the said application and fixed the liability on the petitioner to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 3,590.75 paise w.e.f. August, 1976. Questioning the legality and validity of the said order the present writ petition is.

6. Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Section 29-A(5) of the Act are not attracted in the present case, as the lease in question is a permanent lease or a lease in perpetuity. His submission is that Section 29-A(5) of the Act, on true and correct interpretation, is attracted only in those cases wherein the lease has expired and the lessee has made permanent construction with the consent of the landlord. In any view of the matter, the enhancement of rent could not be ordered w.e.f. August 1976 i.e. for the period anterior to the date of the application. Elaborating the argument, he submits that the application itself was filed in the year 1993 and, as such, the enhancement, if at all, can take place from the date of the application and not prior to it. The valuation report relied upon by the respondent-landlord depicts the market value of the property as of July 1991 and that cannot form basis for fixation of rent w.e.f. August 1976, he submits.

7. Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent supports the impugned order and submits that sub-section (7) of Section 29-A provides that Section 29-A of the Act shall have overriding effect. In this view of the matter, anything to the contrary contained in any contract or instrument or in any other law for the time being in force will be subject to the provisions of Section 29-A of the Act. In other words, it will have effect over the contract of lease also.

8. Main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 29-A is not applicable to unexpired leases of land. Before proceeding further, it is desirable to notice Section 29-A of the Act which is