JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:—Whether the appellant can keep alive her possession of the disputed premises obtained under the ultra vires and dead viz. Chapter III of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 is a million dollar question? 2. To appreciate this question we shall have to advert to factual canvas of the matter. 3. The appellant Smt. Shakuntala filed a complaint under Chapter III of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Control Order, 1949”) before the House Allotment Officer. It was inter alia stated in the said complaint that House No. 595/B-2 having three rooms situated at Loharpura Mohalla, Nagpur, owned by late Bholanath Pande was lying vacant and another house bearing No. 495/5 having three rooms in that very area belonging to late Bholanath Pande was lying vacant and the said landlord was intending to induct new tenants on an increased rent after the previous tenants have vacated the said premises. On a notice ultimately given to the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Landlady”), a reply came to be filed by her denying the allegations made by the appellant Shakuntala (hereinafter referred to as “Allottee”). It was submitted by the landlady that there were tenants in both the houses and occupied by Indradeo Mishra and Vikaykumar Gite and they have not vacated and handed over the possession of the tenements to the landlady. She further averred in the reply that the provisions of Clause 20 of the Rent Control Order, 1949 were ultra vires the Constitution and submitted that proceedings were liable to be dropped. 4. The House Allotment Officer, Nagpur, even if the law is valid, is required to act as a quasi judicial authority, without holding any inquiry of any nature whatsoever and without going into the controversy raised by the landlady passed the order on 30-6-1986 that House No. 495/5 owned by Smt. Kausalyabai w/o Bholanath Pande and vacated by Shri Indradeo Mishra and Shri Vikaykumar Gite comprising both the blocks are allotted to the applicant Ku. Shakuntala d/o Dadaji Neolekar (allottee) under Clause 24 of the Rent Control Order. Shakuntala d/o Dadaji Neolekar (allottee) under Clause 24 of the Rent Control Order. The House Allotment Officer further directed that the possession of the premises allotted be delivered to the allottee by the landlady within 15 days from the communication of this order failing which action under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order will be initiated for compliance of this order. 5. Upset by the order, which according to the landlady, suffered from mistakes apparent from the face of record, moved an application for review of the order passed by the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur, on 30-6-1986. The said application for review was dismissed by the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur on 8-8-1986 observing that the application presented by the landlady for review of orders cannot be considered since there was no provision in Chapter III of the Rent Control Order for review. He further directed that the landlady should comply the order and deliver possession under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order within 7 days and as a result thereof the allottee was put in possession of the aforesaid premises on 12-8-1986. 6. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur, the landlady preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 1854/1986, praying therein that the order passed by the House Allotment Officer, Nagpur, impugned in the writ petition, dated 30-6-1986 be quashed and the possession of House No. 495/5 handed over to the allottee be restored. 7. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties in the writ petition, vide his judgment dated 21-8-1989 allowed the writ petition and ordered that the allottee was bound to restore the possession of House No. 495/5 to the landlady, failing which she may resort to the proceeding under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order for restoring back the property to her possession. 8. The judgment aforesaid passed by the learned Singe Judge on 21-8-1989 has been impugned by allottee in the present letters patent appeal. 9. It may be observed that the validity of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949 containing Clauses 22 to 27 was challenged in (Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola and another v. State Maharashtra and another)1, 1986 Mh.L.J. 882 before this Court. 9. It may be observed that the validity of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949 containing Clauses 22 to 27 was challenged in (Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola and another v. State Maharashtra and another)1, 1986 Mh.L.J. 882 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment delivered on 29-8-1986 held the said provisions contained in Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949 ultra vires the Constitution of India, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the said provisions were struck down. This Court held that the provisions of Chapter III are a piece of invidious delegated legislation which falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitutions and have to be struck down. 10. The judgment of Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola and another v. State of Maharashtra and another, is reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 882. 11. Mr. S.C. Mehadia, the learned Counsel for the appellant, with all vehemence at his command, submitted before this Court that even though Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949 has been struck down by this Court by its judgment dated 29-8-1986 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the possession/allotment which was given in favour of appellant on 12-8-1986 cannot be disturbed. Mr. Mehadia, thus, strenuously submitted before us that the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the order of the House Allotment Officer on the ground that the provisions of Chapter III have been declared ultra vires cannot be justified and in any case since the allottee has been handed over possession of the disputed premises prior to the striking down of the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949, there was no justification for direction by the learned Single Judge to restore back the possession of House No. 495/5 to the landlady. 12. We are afraid, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant have no force and merit. 13. The law is well settled that once the provisions of law have been declared unconstitutional and ultra vires, its effect would be as if the said provisions were never on the statue book. The declaration of provisions as ultra vires do not take effect from the date it is declared so but from the day of its inception. 13. The law is well settled that once the provisions of law have been declared unconstitutional and ultra vires, its effect would be as if the said provisions were never on the statue book. The declaration of provisions as ultra vires do not take effect from the date it is declared so but from the day of its inception. If the provision is unconstitutional and ultra vires and has been declared to be so by the Court, it was unconstitutional from the day it was enacted. In this view of the matter, the undisputed position is that the view of Division Bench of this Court in Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola (supra) still holds field that the provisions of Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949 are ultra vires the Constitution of India. It is again undisputed and it cannot be disputed that the complaint was field by the allottee under Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949, more particularly Clause 22 assuming the said provisions to be valid and constitutional and the House Allotment Officer entertained the said application, purportedly filed under Clause 22, assuming the said provision to be valid and passed an order for allotment of the disputed house to the allottee holding that there was concealment of vacancy by the landlady. Though, even otherwise, the order of the House Allotment Officer cannot be justified, the way and the manner in which the order has been passed but since the said application itself was under the law which has been declared unconstitutional, no allotment of the disputed house and the possession of the said house consequent thereto could have been given by the House Allotment Officer to the allottee. Possession of allottee cannot be protected on plea that since the possession of the disputed house was given by the House Allotment Officer to the allottee on 12-8-1986 and the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Rent Control Order, 1949 were declared ultra vires subsequently by this Court on 29-8-1986 because any order which has been passed under the ultra vires law cannot be sustained. Moreover, the landlady had challenged that very order of allotment and delivery of possession before this Court and even before filing of the writ petition by the landlady, the judgment of this Court in Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola (supra) was handed down. 14. Mr. Moreover, the landlady had challenged that very order of allotment and delivery of possession before this Court and even before filing of the writ petition by the landlady, the judgment of this Court in Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola (supra) was handed down. 14. Mr. Mehadia, the learned Counsel for the appellant then relied upon the observations made in Vidarbha (Rent Control) Bhadekaru Sangh, Akola (supra) by this Court wherein this Court had made it clear that the decision would not affect the validity of any proceedings in which a decree or order of eviction has become final and the landlord has already taken possession of the building or any part thereof pursuant thereto. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since this Court has saved and protected the possession taken by landlord pursuant to the decrees or order of eviction which had become final, as a necessary corollary, possession which was taken by his client, pursuant to the order passed by the House Allotment Officer should be saved. To say the least, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is misplaced. The said observation made by the Division Bench of this Court has no application whatsoever in the present case because here the possession has not been taken by landlord pursuant to the decree or order of eviction which had become final. The fact remains that the allottee got possession pursuant to the order passed by the House Allotment Officer under the provisions of law which are ultra vires and, therefore, the said order of the House Allotment Officer having been quashed, the landlady was entitled to be restored the possession. The learned Single Judge in the operative portion of the order while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned order held that the allottee is bound to restore the possession of House No. 495/5 to the landlady, failing which she may resort to the proceedings under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order for restoring back the property to her possession. We feel that since the order of the House Allotment Officer was non est and void, the landlady was entitled to the restoration of the possession without compelling her to take proceedings or resorting under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order. We feel that since the order of the House Allotment Officer was non est and void, the landlady was entitled to the restoration of the possession without compelling her to take proceedings or resorting under Clause 28 of the Rent Control Order. It is in the interest of justice that the landlady should be restored possession of the property when the order of the House Allotment Officer has been set aside. Moreover, by an interim order the allottee has already taken an advantage of continuance of possession for about 7-8 years and it is in the fitness of the things that a clear and unambiguous direction is given to the appellant/allottee to hand over possession of House No. 495/5 to the landlady forthwith and in any case not later than 2 months from the passing of this order. 15. We cannot refrain from observing that despite the consistent commitments made by the State Counsel before this Court in various cases that there would be a unified Rent Control Legislation in the State, nothing positive has taken place. In a progressive State like Maharashtra, it is really surprising that when there is a call of Unified Rent Control Legislation throughout the country, the State has three Rent Control Legislation operating in three different areas. The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947; Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 and the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 are applicable to different areas of the State. Right from 1971 this Court fervently hoped that there would be rationalisation and unification of the rent laws. In Vidarbha Bhadekaru Sangh v. State (supra) the then learned Assistant Government Pleader told the Court that the State Government has been seriously considering the question of rationalization and unification of the rent laws in the State. Much water has flown in the Ganges since 1986 but no positive and concrete steps have been taken so far, it appears in enacting unified Rent Control Legislation in the State. What was stated on behalf of the Government in (Vidarbha Bhadekaru Sangh v. State) (supra) is reproduced : “In fairness, Shri Jaiswal, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, told us that the State Government has been seriously considering the question of rationalization and unification of the rent laws in the State. What was stated on behalf of the Government in (Vidarbha Bhadekaru Sangh v. State) (supra) is reproduced : “In fairness, Shri Jaiswal, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, told us that the State Government has been seriously considering the question of rationalization and unification of the rent laws in the State. In fact, this Court took note in (Prabhakar Rokde v. State of Maharashtra)2, 1985 Mh.L.J. 548, that the two expert reports of the bodies constituted by the State itself, were under consideration. The Rent Acts Enquiry Committee popularly known as “Tambe Committee” was appointed by the Government of Maharashtra in the year 1975 (Urban Development, Public Health and Housing Department by Resolution No. BRA 2174/9011/75 E, dated 20th February, 1975 as amended by Resolution No. BRA 2174/9011-D-57, dated 6th August, 1975) and the Committee after deliberations and review of various legislations prevailing in the State had made a report in 1977 recommending certain measures and having uniform legislation in the whole State. Maharashtra State Law Commission also gave its Twelfth Report on the unification and consolidation of the Rent restriction laws in the State as far back in July 1979 observing : “The Commission does not see any difficulty in the way of unification and consolidation of the rent restriction laws in the State.” A draft Bill also formed part of the said report. Shri Jaiswal stated that the State Government proposes to introduce a bill to amend Bombay Rent Act in the ensuing Nagpur Session of the State Legislature and is seriously considering the question of having a unified legislation. Presumably the Legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of its own people, its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and its discriminations are based on adequate grounds, as pointed out in (Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar)3, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538. It is best to leave the matter there, in view of the statement made on behalf of the State before us, in the hope that the legislature would see its way to do what is appropriate.” 16. The courts have continued to strike the optimistic note that the State will become alive to the situation and beneficial legislation like Rent Control Act would be uniform in the State but the hope and rather the fervent hope of the Court has been belied. The courts have continued to strike the optimistic note that the State will become alive to the situation and beneficial legislation like Rent Control Act would be uniform in the State but the hope and rather the fervent hope of the Court has been belied. The reasons may be varied for the State Government to not to have acted on the said assurances made on behalf of Government before this Court but we feel now it is need of the time that the State Government acts swiftly and takes appropriate proceedings for uniform rent legislation in this State to curb the public inconvenience and evils. We need not say further in the matter. 17. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Law Secretary of the State Government and learned Advocate General of the State for appropriate steps in the direction for having uniform Rent Control Legislation in Maharashtra. 18. In the result, this letters patent appeal filed by allottee has no force and is liable to be dismissed with costs. The appellant/allottee is directed to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the disputed premises viz. House No. 495/5 to the landlady forthwith and in any case not later than 2 months from the date of the passing of this order. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. -----