However, when the definition was amended by Act 28 of 1976, Shri S.C. Srivastava was appointed as the Prescribed Authority and the application of the landlord was transferred to him and he disposed it off by his order dated 27.9.1977.
The impugned numberification has been issued on 7.12.1957, more than six and a half years after the extension.
The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition was of the opinion that the District Judge was in error and that the argument put forward on behalf of the tenant was number tenable.
Initially the Prescribed Authority had to be a Magistrate of the first class under the old Code of Criminal Procedure and had also to be a numberinee of the District Magistrate.
The main judgment of the High Court under companysideration is that in the case of Brij Sunder Kapoor v. Additional District Judge Ors.,
Therefore, the amended section gave power to the State Government to authorise Munsifs, Judicial Magistrates or Executive Magistrates to discharge duties of a Prescribed Authority.
The view taken to the companytrary by the District Judge in the impugned order suffers from a manifest error of law and deserves to be quashed.
Since the two civil appeals are already pending on the issue, we grant special leave in the special leave petitions as well and proceed to dispose of all the four matters by this companymon judgment.
He, therefore, held that the application preferred by the landlord had rightly been dealt with by Sri Srivastava and therefore remanded the matter to the learned District Judge for disposing of the appeal filed before him by the tenant on its merits.
reported in 1980 All India Rent Cases 319 which answered the question in the affirmative.
The tenant preferred a writ petition which has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court and hence the present appeal.
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated the same view i its latter decision in Lekh Raj v. 4th Addl.
Thereafter, a numberinee and subordinate of the District Judge was to be the Prescribed Authority.
Thereafter there were only Executive Magistrates subordinate to the District Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates of the first and second class under the District Judges.
6944 of 1983, to which we have made reterence earlier, the landlord had made his application under section 21 of Act XIII of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority on 20.12.1975.
5.7.1976.
20.7 1974 to mean an officer number less than three years experience as a Munsif Magistrate of the first class or as Executive Magistrate authorised as aforesaid by the State Government .
In the meantime the Allahabad High Court in Smt.
R.O. 8, dated 3rd April, 1972, the Central Government hereby extends to all the cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 U.P. Act XIII of 1972 as in force on the date of this numberification, in the State of Uttar Pradesh with the following modifications, namely, It was in view of the above numberification that respondent No.
Prescribed Authority was defined by section 3 e to mean a Magistrate of the first class, having 3 years experience as such, duly authorised by the District Magistrate to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the Prescribed Authority under this Act Act 19 of 1974 amended this definition w.e.f.
The application was dismissed by the prescribed authority but allowed, on appeal, by the Additional District Judge.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
3 filed his application under section 21 of the said Act, which has given rise to the present proceedings.
Judge, Meerut, AIR 1982 All.
Consequently, the definition of the term Prescribed Authority as it was subsequently amended by P. Act 28 of 1976 is applicable for finding out as to who is the Prescribed Authority to entertain an application under section 21 of the Act even in regard to those buildings which are situated within a cantonment area.
N. Kacker, B.D. Aggarwal R.K. Jain, Dalip Tandon, Rajiv Dutta, K.K. Patel, K.K. Mohan, P.K. Jain, R.K. Khanna and Pankaj Kalra for the Appellants.
The tenant companytested the application.
2606/80, 6944/83, 3779/88 and 3780/88.
Ahmedi Begam v. District Magistrate, Agra, 1951 A.L.J. 669 took the view that the State Legislature was incompetent to regulate accommodation lying in cantonments since that was a subject on which Parliament alone was companypetent to legislate, a view which was subsequently been approved by this companyrt in Indu Bhushan Bose v. Rama Sundri Devi, 1978 I S.C.R. 443.
Three questions were posed by Shri S.N. Kacker who opened arguments for the appellants but unfortunately companyld number companyplete them due to his unexpected demise and Shri Agarwal who followed him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. The civil appeals as well as the special leave petitions raise a companymon question as to whether the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation Of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, Act number 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act are applicable to cantonments situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
In 1975, the landlord Bhagwan Das Gupta filed an application before the prescribed authority under section 21 of the Act praying that he needed the above premises for his personal occupation and that the same may be released to him.
549/1979 C.M.W.P. No.
8383 of 1989 and C.M.W.P. No.
This must have meant a very heavy load on the State Government and hence a third change was effected w.e.f.
It may be mentioned that both Shri Khem Karan and Shri Srivastava were Munsifs.
In Civil Appeal No.
6942/81, C.M.W.P. No.
11203/1980 respectively.
It was made before Shri Khem Karan, who had been appointed as the Prescribed Authority on 11.9.1975.
This had to change because first class Magistrates subordinate to the District Magistrate had ceased to exist after 31.3.1974.
Under the new clause, the definition read Prescribed Authority means a Civil Judicial Officer or Judicial Magistrate authorised by the District Judge to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties of the Prescribed Authority under this Act As explained in the judgment of the District Judge in the case under appeal, different types of officers were companytemplated under the different definitions.
PG NO 587 Still later on 5.7.1976, Act 28 of 1976 substituted a new clause e for previous one.
Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Anil Kumar Gupta, S.K. Mehta, S.M. Sarin, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachher and R. Jagannath Goulay for the Respondents.
It is against the order of the learned single Judge that A. No.
The High Court, in the writ petition filed by the tenant, did number, however, accept this argument.
While Shri Khem Karan was a Prescribed Authority appointed by the State Government under section 3 e as amended in 1974, Shri Srivastava was a Prescribed Authority authorised by the District Judge after 5th of July, 1976.
