Union of India and Another Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Agra and Others

Union of India and Another vs Vth Additional District Judge, Agra and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 19, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/465226

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/465226
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Yatindra Singh, J.
Decided On: Nov 19, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 48443 of 1999
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Tenancy - interpretation -Section 2(a), 3(o), 21(1)(a) and 21(8) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 - 'Public Building' - public building does not include building of which Government is tenant - held, Act does not apply to a building let out to the Central Government. -

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 2, 2 (1), 3, 21, 21 (1) and (8)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Union of India and Another

Advocate Devi Shankar Shukla, Adv.

Respondent

Vth Additional District Judge, Agra and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 2, 2 (1), 3, 21, 21 (1) and (8)
Reported In: 2000(2)AWC965

Excerpt

tenancy - interpretation -section 2(a), 3(o), 21(1)(a) and 21(8) of u. p. urban buildings (regulation of letting and eviction) act, 1972 - 'public building' - public building does not include building of which government is tenant - held, act does not apply to a building let out to the central government. - .....singh, j.1. the sole question involved in the writ petition is, whether the u. p. urban buildings (regulation of letting. rent and eviction) act. 1972 (the act) is applicable to the building let out to the central government. this is how it arises.facts2. the respondent nos. 3 to 6 are the landlords of the premises in dispute. they filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under section 21(1) (a) of the act. this application was allowed by the prescribed authority on 13.1.1997 (annexure-2 to the writ petition) holding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and greater hardship will occasion to him in case his application is rejected. the petitioners' appeal was dismissed on 11.8.1999. hence the present writ petition.the act is applicable3. the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that application under section 21 (1) (a) of the act is not maintainable, as the act does not apply to a building let out to the central government. he also relies upon a supreme court decision in state of u. p. v. malik zartd kholid.section 3 (o) defines 'public building'. it includes a building let out to the central government, but this does not help the petitioner. section 2 exempts a building from the operation of the act. it enumerates different buildings, mentioned in different sub-sections that are so exempted. in these sub-sections, neither public building has been mentioned ; nor any building let out to central (union) government is mentioned. any building let out to the central government is not exempted from operation of the act merely for that reason. the act is applicable to the building let out to the central government. 'the malik zarid case4. the malik zartd case is not applicable to the present case, as section 2 of the act at that time (when decision was rendered) was different. sub-section 2 (a) at that time included public building. public buildings were exempted from operation of the act at that time. since then section 2 has been amended. now it.....

Full Judgment

Yatindra Singh, J.

1. The sole question involved in the writ petition is, whether the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act) is applicable to the building let out to the Central Government. This is how it arises.

FACTS

2. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are the landlords of the premises in dispute. They filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 13.1.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) holding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and greater hardship will occasion to him in case his application is rejected. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed on 11.8.1999. Hence the present writ petition.

THE ACT IS APPLICABLE

3. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act is not maintainable, as the Act does not apply to a building let out to the Central Government. He also relies upon a Supreme Court decision In State of U. P. v. Malik Zartd Kholid.Section 3 (o) defines 'public building'. It includes a building let out to the Central Government, but this does not help the petitioner. Section 2 exempts a building from the operation of the Act. It enumerates different buildings, mentioned in different sub-sections that are so exempted. In these sub-sections, neither public building has been mentioned ; nor any building let out to Central (Union) Government is mentioned. Any building let out to the Central Government is not exempted from operation of the Act merely for that reason. The Act is applicable to the building let out to the Central Government. '

THE MALIK ZARID CASE

4. The Malik Zartd case is not applicable to the present case, as Section 2 of the Act at that time (when decision was rendered) was different. Sub-Section 2 (a) at that time included public building. Public buildings were exempted from operation of the Act at that time. Since then Section 2 has been amended. Now it does not Include 'public building'. It merely includes building of which Government or alocal authority or Public Sectors Corporation or a Cantonment Board is the landlord. It does not include a building if the Government is a tenant. The decision of the Apex Court in the Malik Zarid case is not applicable as the law stands today: No submissions were advanced that the application under Section 21 (1) is not maintainable due to bar under Section 21 (8) of the Act. Even otherwise, 1 have already held that bar of Section 21 (8) does not apply to a building let out to the Central Government.

5. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed. However, the petitioner is running a post office in the premise in dispute. Sometime may be necessary to find an alternative accommodation in view of this, the petitioner may not be evicted for a period of six months from today.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Union of India and Another vs Vth Additional District Judge, ... Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Yatindra Singh, J. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent an...

Tenancy