JUDGMENT
Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. The plaintiffs filed a suit before the Judge Small Cause Court for ejectment of the tenant and for possession alleging therein that they are the owners and landlords of the accommodation in question and that the tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of demand, the tenant had failed to pay the rent. The plaintiffs further alleged that a composite notice Under Section 80, C.P.C. read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was duly served upon the tenant and inspite of service of notice, the accommodation in question was not vacated nor the arrears of rent had been paid. The plaintiff also submitted that the building in question is a public building and was exempted from the operation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
2. The State of U. P. who is the tenant, contested the claim and submitted that they are not in arrears of rent and that they had deposited the entire rent, water tax etc. Under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13, of 1972. The tenant further submitted that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable and that they could not be evicted. The tenant further submitted that in view of U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983, the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 became applicable and, therefore, in view of the said Ordinance, the tenant could not be evicted.
3. The Judge Small Cause Court after determining the points in issue decreed the suit of the plaintiff- landlord. The Judge Small Cause Court held that the composite notice issued by the landlord was a valid notice and had determined the tenancy. The Court further held that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable and that U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 was only prospective in nature and was not applicable in the present case.
4. Aggrieved by the decision of the Judge Small Cause Court, the petitioner tenant filed a revision, which was also dismissed. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition and has contended that the petitioner could not be evicted in view of U. P. Ordinance No. 43 of 1983,
5. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
6. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted and came into force w.e.f. 15.7.1972. Section 2 of the Act excluded certain building from the operation of the Act. Section 2 (1) (a) and 2 (1) (b) as it originally stood and brought into force on 15.7.1972 reads as under :
“Section 2 (1). Nothing in this Act shall apply to :
(a) any building belonging to or vested in the Government of India or the Government of any State or any local authority ; or
(b) any tenancy created by Government from the State Government or the Government of India in respect of a building taken on lease or requisitioned by such Government.”
7. Section 2 (1) was amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 w.e.f. 5.7.1976. The amended Section 2 (1) of the Act reads as under :
“Section 2 (1). Nothing in this Act shall apply to :
(a) any public building ; or”
8. By U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, Section 3 (o) was inserted which reads as under :
“Section 3 (o) “public building”, means any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government (including the Government of any other State), and includes any building belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation.”
9. Thus, prior to the amendment of Section 2 (1) of the Act by Amendment Act No. 28 of 1976, the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to a building, which belonged to or vested in State Government, Central Government or a local authority. The Act also did not apply to a building, which was taken on a lease or requisitioned by the Central Government, State Government or a local authority.
10. After the 1976 Amendment, the Act was not applicable to a building, which belonged to or taken on lease or requisitioned by the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any public sector corporation. This position continued till the next amendment was made by the U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 promulgated on 18.5.1983. The amendment of Section 2 (1) (a) sought by this Ordinance reads as under :
“Section 2 (I).- Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely :
(a) any building of which the Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation is the landlord ; or”
11. This amendment was kept alive by a series of Ordinances, namely, Ordinance No. 43 of 1983, 6 of 1984, 8 of 1984, 20 of 1984 and 9 of 1985. Eventually. U. P. Act No. 17 of 1985 was enacted on 20.8.1985 regularising the aforesaid Ordinances and this Act No. 17 of 1985 was made effective from 18.5.1983.
12. The result of this amendment was that w.e.f. 18.5.1983, the Act was not applicable to a building of which the Central Government, State Government local authority or a public sector corporation was the landlord.
13. In the present case, the suit was filed in the year 1981 and, therefore, the Amendment Act No. 28 of 1976 was applicable in the present case. The contention of the learned standing counsel that U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 would be applicable is devoid of any merit.
14. In State of U. P. and Ors. v. Malik Zarid Khalld, (1988) 1 SCC 145. The Supreme Court held that the amendment in Section 2 (1) of the Act by U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1976, was intended to be effective between 5.7.1976 and 18.5.1983 and that the amendment made by Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 was not Intended to be read back. The Supreme Court held that the Government who are tenants will be in position to claim all the immunities available to other tenants under the Act after 18.5.1983 when Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 came into force.
15. It is, therefore, clear that the amendment made in Section 2 (1) by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 was effective between the period from 5.7.1976 and 18.5.1983. During this period the suit was filed in the year 1981 and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2 (1) (a) read with Section 3 (o) as amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 would apply. The U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 was effective only from 18.5.1983 onwards and the same is prospective and cannot be relied upon in the present suit, which was filed prior to 18.5.1983.
16. Since U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable, the plaintiff could evict the tenant after serving a notice determining the tenancy. In the present case, it has been found that a valid notice had been served upon the petitioner determining the tenancy.
17. In view of the aforesaid, there is no error in the judgment passed by the Judge Small Cause Court and the judgment of the revisional court. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted three months’ time to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession to the respondents.
