STATE OF U P Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard Standing Coun sel for the State and Sri K. N. Saxena appear ing for the respondent landlord.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the building in question is occupied by the petitioners as tenants. The order impugned in the writ petition has been passed under the proviso to Section 21 (8) of the U. P. Urban Build ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972. Learned Standing Counsel urged that nothing contained in the Act would apply to a "public building" and fur ther that the building being in occupation of the State Government shall be deemed to be a "public building" within the meaning of Section 3 (o) of the said Act.

(3.) FOR the reasons aforestated the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .