Back
1990 Supreme(All) 48
High Court of Allahabad
S.H.A.Raza, J.
Mohd. Zakariya
Vs.
Viith Additional District Judge
Writ Petition No. 1354 of 1989
Decided On : Jan 19, 1990
Advocate Appeared:
R.K.Sinha, D.S.Randhava
An amendment to a statute with retrospective effect cannot be applied to a suit filed prior to the enactment of the amendment, unless the retrospectivity of the amendment is specifically extended to such suits.
Headnote:
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 2 (1) (A) - Retrospective effect of amendment - Applicability to suit filed prior to amendment - Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the tenants, who were occupying a public building, on 17/18th March, 1983. The suit was filed prior to the amendment of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, which excluded public buildings from the operation of the Act. The amendment was brought into force with retrospective effect from 18-5-1983. The trial court and the revisional court dismissed the suit, holding that the amendment was retrospective in nature and hence the Act was applicable to the premises in dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment to Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was retrospective in nature, but its retrospectivity was limited to 18-5-1983 and did not go beyond that date. Since the suit was filed on 17-3-1983, prior to the amendment, the benefit of Section 20 (iv), 39 and 40 of the Act could not be availed by the tenants. The court also held that the deposit made by the tenants under Section 20 (4) of the Act on the first date of hearing, after the amendment came into force, was not valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was retrospective in nature? 2. Whether the amendment was applicable to a suit filed prior to its enactment? 3. Whether the deposit made by the tenants under Section 20 (4) of the Act on the first date of hearing, after the amendment came into force, was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendment to Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was retrospective in nature, but its retrospectivity was limited to 18-5-1983 and did not go beyond that date. 2. The court held that the amendment was not applicable to a suit filed prior to its enactment, as the retrospectivity of the amendment was limited to 18-5-1983 and the suit was filed on 17-3-1983. 3. The court held that the deposit made by the tenants under Section 20 (4) of the Act on the first date of hearing, after the amendment came into force, was not valid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the trial court and the revisional court and directed the trial court to decide the case afresh in accordance with law.
S.H.A.Raza, J.
1. The only question involved in this writ petition is as to whether a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment from a public building, filed prior to 18-5-1983, will be governed by Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act or will be governed by the general law. the petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 1-11-1988, passed in revision by VIIth Additional District Judge, Hardoi, and dated 4-4-1987 passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Hardoi, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment filed against opposite parties no. 3 to 5. It was averred that the petitioner who is the landlord of the premises in dispute let out a house to Union of India through the Secretary Post and Telegraphs, Ministry of Communication and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hardoi Region, Hardoi and the Post Master, Branch Post Office, Ganga Rampur Chauraha, Kasba and Pargana Mallawan, Tehsil Bilgram, district Hardoi i.e. opposite parties no. 3 to 5 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- per month. The petitioner filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the aforesaid tenants on 17/18th March, 1983 after giving, them a notice under Section 80 CPC and a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy as they failed to remit the rent for the period commencing from 1-3-1982 to 31-12-1982 to the petitioner inspite of several demands being made by him.
2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) was not applicable over the premises indispute because the aforesaid suit was instituted by the petitioner on 17-3-1983 and at that time the premises indispute was exempted from the operation of the Act. The premises in dispute came under 'Public Building', defined under Section 3 of the Act, and by means of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act such building were exempted from the operation of the Act. Hence the tenancy of the opposite parties no. 3 to 5 was determined by means of notice under Section 106, of the Transfer of Property Act and the suit was filed.
Although the tenants admitted the ownership of the petitioner as well as the arrears of rent commencing from the period 1-3-1982 to 31-12- 1982 amounting to Rs. 500/-. Their stand, in nut-shell, was that the Act was applicable on them and in view of Section 20 (4) of the Act they were not liable for eviction as they have tendered the requisite amount on the first date of. hearing i.e. 15-7-1983. Before the trial court as provided under Section 20 (4) "of the Act. However, the aforesaid tender under was not accepted by the trial court on that date.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that before 18-5-1983 all the public buildings were exempted from the operation of the Act. Oh 18-5-1983 by means of Ordinance No. 28 of 1983, Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act was amended and the exemption granted to all the public buildings earlier was limited to any building of which the government or a local authority or a public sector corporation was the landlord. Hence, the buildings which were in the tenancy of the government were excluded from the exemption. This Ordinance was granted extension by Ordinance No. 43 of 1983 and 6 of 1984 and finally by means of U. P. Act No. 17 of 1985. The aforesaid amendment in Section 2(1) (a) of the Act was finally brought into force with effect from 18-5-1983. The aforesaid amendment In the Act i.e. the exclusion of the government tenented 'buildings from the exemption clause of the Act under Section 2 of the Act was given retrospective effect from 18-5-1983 i.e. the retrospectivity of the aforesaid amending Act No. 17 of 1985 was valid only up to 18-5-1983 and not beyond. The suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the Munsif East, Hardoi i.e. the Judge Small Causes Court, Hardoi. The Vllth Additional District Judge, Hardoi, also dismissed the revision of the petitioner by giving a findi
