Execution of orders under the old Rent Act must be conducted under its provisions, as the new Act does not apply retroactively.

JUDGMENT :

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

Heard Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Sharma, advocate holding brief of Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed with following relief;

''(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Mauranipur, District Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2022 (S.M. Shahnawaz v. Bachchu Lal) to this writ petition.''

3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has filed P.A. Case No. 2 of 2016 under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972'), which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2021. The said decree became final between the parties. Thereafter, petitioner has filed execution case being Civil Misc. Case No. 07 of 2022 before Civil Judge, Mauranipur, Jhansi to execute the judgement and decree dated 21.12.2021. Learned Civil Judge has rejected the execution case on the ground that New Rent Control Act i.e. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2021') came w.e.f. 11.1.2021. Therefore, in light of Section 38 of Act, 2021, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case and accordingly, dismissed. Hence, present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly, case was filed under the provisions of Act, 1972 and also decreed. Therefore, execution proceeding shall only lie under the provisions of Old Act i.e. Act, 1972, which he had filed. He also pointed out that Section 36 of Act, 2021 provides that Rent Authority shall execute only those orders, which were passed under the provisions of this Act i.e. Act, 2021, therefore, order is ex facie bad. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Hanumat Singh v. Phuna; (1969) 0 Supreme (Raj) 208.

5. Per contra, Sri Mahesh Sharma, advocate holding brief of Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent opposed and submitted that execution case is not the continuance of suit proceeding, but it would be treated as fresh suit, therefore, it cannot be filed under the provisions of Old Act. He also invited attention of the Court to Section 34 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021, which provides that Rent Authority is having power of Civil Court for execution of order. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court as well as judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the matters of Karnataka Housing Board v. Nagamani; (2019) 0 Supreme (SC) 538, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and another v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners and others, (2021) 2 SCC 163 and Pratap Narain Agarwal v. Ragho Prasad and other, AIR 1970 ALLAHABAD 15.

6. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, Act, 1972, Act, 2021 as well as judgments relied upon.

7. Section 36 of Act, 2021 is relevant to decide the present controversy and the same is being quoted below;

''36. Execution of order.-36. (1)The Rent Authority shall, on an application filed by any party, execute an order of a Rent Tribunal or any other order made under this Act, in such manner as may be prescribed, by-

(a) delivering possession of the premises to the person in whose favour the decision has been made; or

(b) attaching one or more bank accounts of the opposite party for the purpose of recovering the amount specified in such order; or

(c) appointing any advocate or any other competent person including officers of the Rent Authority or local administration or local body for the execution of such order; or

(d) attachment of salary and allowance of the opposite party; or

(e) attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the opposite party

(2) The Rent Authority may take help from the local police for execution of the final orders:

Provided that no