An application for release of a building under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not maintainable if the building had not completed ten years from the date of its construction when the application was filed, even if it completed ten years during the pendency of the application.

R.M. Sahai, J.

Entertaining doubt about correctness of observation made in Savitri Devi v. Shobran Singh 1979 ARC 398 that an application for release of a building under Act XIII of 1972 could be allowed even though it was filed when Act was not applicable but became applicable during pendency of application as Supreme Court in Rameshwar and Others Vs. Jot Ram and Another, (1976) 1 SCC 194 had observed that the right to relief must be judged to exist on the date a suitor instituted a legal proceeding a learned Single Judge of this Court referred this tenant's petition for hearing and decision by a larger bench as to whether the two authorities were justified in entertaining and allowing the application for release filed u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act) although the Act had not become applicable to the premises on the date when application was presented. Reference was made also as certain observations in Ram Nath Export Ltd. v. Addl District Judge, Allahabad 1984 ARC 397 on Rule 16, framed under the Act ran contrary to Smt. Chandra Devi v. XII Addl. District Judge 1983 CJ 627. As entree petition was being referred the learned Judge was of opinion that one of the pertinent question that arose for consideration was whether a tenant was entitled to invoke equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution specially when he did not bake by the terms agreed and was not prepared to deliver back possession to the landlord after expiry of the term. No arguments, however, were heard on Rule 16 because if the answer to the first question is in affirmative and it is held that application was not maintainable then the decision on Rule 16 would have been obiter dicta only.

2. For deciding the controversy regarding maintainability of application suffice it to mention that house in dispute was constructed in 1971 the application for release u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed in July, 1980. The building, therefore, had not completed ten years, from the date of its construction, when the application was presented. Thai; the application was not maintainable could not be seriously disputed as, Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act provides that, 'except as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 12, Sub-section (1-A) of Section 21, Sub-section (2) of Section 24, Section 24-A, 24-B, and 24-C or Sub-section (3) of Section 29 nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years on the date on which its construction was completed.' It is not necessary to mention about the proviso or explanation 1 and 2 of this sub-section, as they are not very material for controversy in question. A bare reading of this sub-section indicates that barring the circumstances mentioned in it the Act does not apply to a building which had not completed ten years from the date of its construction, And the bar appears to be absolute. The language of the Section, its setting and objective all support the same conclusion. The Legislature while restricting and regulating, letting and rent of buildings situated in urban area has been keen to grant ten years exemption to provide impetus for building activity except where landlord or tenant has to vacate the accommodation in his possession either because the building was needed by the government or because the tenant had been directed to be evicted on application of landlord u/s 21. The sub-section, therefore, while exempting buildings from operation of the Act if it had not completed ten years created another exception in respect of those buildings, which were covered by various sections mentioned therein. It eliminates any scope for argument that the Act by virtue of section 1 applies to all buildings. Section 1 of the Act only extends the provisions of Act to every city, municipality, notified area, town area etc. But even there the Legislature left the option to State Government to exc