JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J.
1. Smt. Shushma Giri, petitioner No. 1 was occupying house No. 175/191, Allenganj, Allahabad, as a tenant on the basis of an order of allotment passed in her favour in the year 1958. An application was made by Ram Chandra Gupta, respondent No. 2, who is the landlord of the said house, for release of the house under Section 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that Smt. Shushma Giri had left it and consequently it was available for being released in his favour. This application was opposed by Jagannath Bharti, since deceased, father of petitioners 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3, inter alia on the ground that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act inasmuch as he had been occupying the house from before the commencement of the Act with the consent of the then landlord. This plea found favour with the Rent Control & Eviction Officer and he by his order dated December, 22, 1975, rejected the application for release made by respondent No. 2. Against that order an appeal was filed before the District Judge by respondent No. 2 under Section 18 of the Act. The appeal was transferred to the 9th Additional District Judge, Allahabad. Before the appeal could be disposed of the Act was amended by U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976). By virtue of the Amending Act, Section 18 of the principal Act was substituted. Section 18 as substituted inter alia provides that no appeal shall lie from any order under Section 16 or Section 19 whether made before or after the commencement of this section, but any person aggrieved by a final order under any of the said sections may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer a revision to the District Judge on any one or more of the grounds mentioned therein. After the commencement of the aforesaid Amending Act the petitioners instituted this writ petition with a prayer to direct the 9th Additional District Judge not to proceed with the revision on the ground that the power to hear revision under Section 18 could be exercised only by the District Judge and not by an Additional District Judge.
2. In support of the aforesaid plea reliance has been placed on Section 18 of the Act as it stood before its amendment by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 and on Section 10 of the said Act. Under Section 18 of the Act as it stood before its being amended by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976, an appeal lay to the District Judge. The provisions of Section 10 were, however, made applicable mutatis mutandis to an appeal filed under Section 18. Section 10 of the Act provides that it is open to the District Judge to either dispose of the appeal himself or assign it for disposal to any Additional District Judge under his administrative control. Emphasis has been laid on the fact that under Section 18 of the Act as it stands after its amendment by U. P. Act 28 of 1976, the provisions of Section 10 have not been made applicable to a revision filed under Section 18. Consequently the revision has to be heard by the District Judge and not by any Additional District Judge. In our opinion there is no substance in this submission.
3. It would be seen that U. P. Act 28 of 1976 was published in the Gazette of July 5, 1976. Before its commencement the provisions of the General Clauses Act had been amended by the U. P. General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1975 (U. P. Act 54 of 1975). By Section 5 of the Amending Act certain amendments were made in Section 4 of the principal Act. Clause (53) was inserted as a new clause in Section 4 of the principal Act. Clause (53) reads:
"Any reference to the district judge, civil judge or munsif shall be construed as including a reference to an additional district judge, an additional civil judge or, as the case may be, an additional munsif to whom a case is assigned by the district Judge (to whom such officer is administratively subordinate) for disposal."
In view of the newly inserted Clause (53) of Section 4 of the General Clauses Act in all Uttar Pradesh Acts, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context any reference to the District Judge shall include a reference to an Additional District Judge. The U. P. Act 54 of 1976 by which Clause (53) was inserted in Section 4 of the General Clauses Act, was published in the U. P. Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 21st October, 1975, and was already in force on the date of commencement of U. P. Act. 28 of 1976 by which Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, was amended. The legislature would, therefore, be presumed to be aware of this amendment and accordingly we are of opinion that when the reference was made to the District Judge in Section 18 of the Act as substituted by U. P. Act 28 of 1976, it included reference to an Additional District Judge. In our opinion there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context of Section 18 of the Act to what is contained in Clause (53) of Section 4 of the General Clauses Act.
4. In this view of the matter notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of Section 10 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, may not have been made specifically applicable mutatis mutandis to a revision filed under Section 18 as it stands after its amendment by U. P. Act 28, 1976, the term 'District Judge' as used in Section 18 shall include an 'Additional District Judge' in view of Clause (53) of Section 4 of the General Clauses Act as inserted by U. P. Act 54 of 1975.
5. We accordingly find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs. The order of stay dated November 5, 1976, is vacated.