Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The aforementioned petitions are being heard together at the admission stage without calling for counter-affidavit on the consent of the parties. The facts and law involved are common.

2. The facts of Civil Misc. Petition No. 7658 of 2015 (Anees Uddin v. Waqf Alal Khair) is taken to be the leading petition.

3. The respondent/plaintiff a waqf, instituted a suit before the Small Causes Court at Meerut being SCC Suit No. 83 of 2012 against the applicant/tenant for eviction, damages and arrears of rent. The applicant contested by filing a written statement categorically stating that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) would not be applicable upon waqf property, therefore, the suit was barred by Section 20(1) of Act 13 of 1972 read with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial Court by order dated 19 February 2015 dismissed the application (29-C) filed under Order 7 Rule 11 holding that the suit was maintainable and the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 would not apply as the disputed premises being waqf property would thus be barred in view of Section 2(1)(bbb). Aggrieved, applicant preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act, 1887, being SCC Revision No. 5 of 2015 which was dismissed on 9 November 2015 affirming the order of the trial Court. The aforementioned orders are being assailed in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant is that the Government of India in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 3 of Cantonment Extension of Rent Control Act, 1957 (Act 47 of 1957) made applicable the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 vide notification dated 1 September 1973, followed by a subsequent notification issued on 17 February 1982, to cantonment areas by incorporation as it stood on the date of notification. It is, therefore, sought to be urged that the subsequent amendment brought about in Act 13 of 1972 by U.P. Act 5 of 1995 inserting Section 2(1)(bbb) excluding the waqf property from the application Act 13 of 1972 would not apply as the said amendment was not incorporated by the Government of India by any subsequent notifications after 1995.

5. In rebuttal, Sri Ateeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Government of India vide notifications, mentioned herein above, have made applicable the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 by reference and not by incorporation, therefore, any subsequent amendments made in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would be applicable upon the cantonment areas, therefore, would urge that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

6. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

7. The only point pressed by the parties is, whether U.P. Act 13 of 1972 as made applicable to the cantonment areas is by way of reference or by incorporation; therefore, whether Section 2(1)(bbb) excluding the application of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 upon cantonment areas, inserted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995, would be applicable in excluding the Waqf property from the application of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.

8. In order to appreciate the limited controversy in the present petition, the distinction between legislation by incorporation or by reference is to be understood.

9. Incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device adopted for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim reproduction of the provision of the earlier Act into the later. When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and parcel of the later Act as if they had been “bodily” transposed into it. The result is the later Act alongwith the incorporated provisions of the earlier Act, constitute an independent legislation which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal of the earlier Ac