THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. THE SPECIAL JUDGE/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.8.2000 whereby a revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1996 passed by the trial Court. It appears that the petitioners filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the contesting respondents. The suit was decreed by the trial Court for ejectment and recovery of rent. Challenging the validity of the decree passed by the trial Court, a revision was filed by the contesting respondents before the Court below. The Court below allowed the revision by means of the impugned order dated 26.8.2000 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1996 passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court below has acted illegally in holding that the provisions of Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, were applicable and the suit was barred by the aforesaid section.

(3.) IT has been found by the Court below that the petitioner No. 1 was a society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act and not under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. It has also been held that before exemption under Section 2 of the Act is claimed, two things must be proved. Firstly, that the building was built by the society and secondly, that the building was held by the society and intended solely for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servants etc. In the present case, admittedly, the building was not in occupation of the petitioner Federation; but it is in occupation of the contesting respondents. The Court below was, thus, right in holding that although the building was built by the Co -operative Society but as it was let out to a tenant then it cannot be said that the building was also held by the society and intended solely for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servants.