Hon’ble Shiva Kirti Singh, C.J.—Parties have been heard in detail.

2. By a specific order passed on 19.5.2011 in the first case of Arun Kumar Joseph, a learned Single Judge has referred two questions of law for determination by a Larger Bench in the light of apparent conflict between two sets of judgments passed by different Benches of learned Single Judges. The connected matters are to be governed by the answers to the issues under reference. The questions of law referred are as follows :

“(a). Whether release application by landlord can be said to be barred by limitation if the same is presented after more than 12 years from the date person is said to have entered into an unauthorised occupation of the premises covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972;

(b) Whether in absence of any limitation being provided under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for initiation of release proceedings, qua deemed vacancy can any period of limitation, be read in the statutory provisions, on the principle that the power/right vested must be exercised within reasonable time.”

3. Before scrutinizing the two sets of judgments and other relevant judgments on the aforesaid issues and the relevant provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the relevant facts of the first matter at hand may be noted in brief. Petitioner-Arun Kumar Joseph is undisputedly in occupation of the premises in question, since 1994. There is no allotment order in his favour and it is also not in dispute that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the premises in question. After purchasing the property from the earlier owner, the respondents filed a release application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer sometimes in 2007 on the ground that the writ petitioner is an unauthorised occupant because there is no allotment order in his favour and as such there is a deemed vacancy under the Act and hence, the property be released in their favour on account of bona fide personal requirement. The writ petitioner contested the application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act and took a specific plea that since possession of the petitioner is for more than 12 years, therefore, he cannot be evicted nor vacancy can be declared. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy by order dated 28.8.2009 and release was ordered on 18.8.2010. Writ petitioner’s revision application before the District Judge was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.4.2011.

4. Before the Writ Court, the main contention was that even if a person is in possession of premises covered by the Act without any allotment order in his favour, release application filed after 12 years would be barred by time. Admittedly, the Act does not prescribe any such limitation, but reliance was placed upon three judgments rendered in different matters by the learned Single Judges of this Court. Those judgments are mentioned in the order of reference as ‘judgments 1st set’. The judgments are in the case of (1) Smt. Jamuna Devi v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2009 (10) ADJ 607, (2) Hazi Naseem Ahmad v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 2009 (5) ADJ 263 and (3) Rajeev Maurya v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ADM (City), 2008 (3) ARC 359.

5. On the other hand, the contrary contention advanced on behalf of the respondents was based upon the contrary views taken by two learned Single Judges in two different cases, (1) Babloo v. Munna Lal Verma and another, 2007 (3) ARC 633 and (2) Rajendra Singh v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 2006 (2) ARC 287.

6. A perusal of judgments of 1st set discloses that in the earliest of these judgments in the case of Rajeev Maurya (supra) dated July 16, 2008, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 3 placed reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court in Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak, AIR 1983 SC 1239 and his own judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Dixi