V P PURI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's petition. It is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Saharanpur as well as the Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur rejecting an application filed by the Petitioners Under Section 21(i) and (1 -A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) THE building in question is house No. 2497 Gill Colony, Saharanpur. The Petitioners are its landlords while the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner is the tenant of the same. The application of the landlord was made on the assertion that Petitioner No. 2 namely Hiralal Puri was in service of Andhra Pradesh Government as Inspector of Police, CID Branch. While the said Petitioner was in employment of the Andhra Pradesh Government he was allotted an official accommodation owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said Petitioner retired from service in the year 1974. The Petitioner No. 3 was also in the service of Central Railways and was at present posted in Bombay. He too was due to retire shortly. They have no other accommodation available with them for residence after retirement. On these facts, the landlord claimed an order of release under the aforesaid provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Before the Courts below the Petitioner claimed the benefit of Sub -section (1 -A) of Section 21 on the ground that one of the landlords was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of the cessation of his employment. The courts below have refused to consider the application of the Petitioners Under Clause (1 -A) of Section 21 on the ground that the official accommodation which was allotted to the Petitioner was not situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. I am unable to accept the interpretation which the learned District Judge has placed upon the applicable provisions.

(3.) THE next relevant provision is Section 3(o) which defines a "public building" and the same reads thus: