N.D.OJHA, J. - (1.) COMMON question arise for consideration in these three writ petitions. They are, as such, being decided together. Cantonment Board, Meerut, filed three suits, one against each of the petitioners in these three writ petitions, in the Court of Judge, Small causes, Meerut. These suits were filed for ejectment of the petitioners from the quarters occupied by them and for recovery of arrears of rent etc. On the ground that they were tenants of those quarters which belonged to the Cantonment Board, that they were in arrears of rent, that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were not applicable to the quarters occupied by the petitioners in view of the exception contained in Section 2(1)(a) read with Section 3(o) of the Act and that the tenancy of the petitioners had been duly terminated by serving upon them a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(2.) THE petitioner in each of three writ petitions asserted to be a licensee and not a lessee. All the three suits have been decreed on the finding that the petitioner in each of the three writ petitions was a lessee of the Cantonment Board and his tenancy had been duly terminated. It has also been held that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the quarters in question in view of the provisions contained in Section 2(1)(a) read with Section 3(o) of the Act. It is these orders passed in three suits which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petitions. That the Act, but for the provisions contained in Section 2(1)(a) read with Section 3(o) thereof would have applied to the quarters in question subject to certain restrictions, exception and modifications admits of no doubt in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Lekhraj v. IVth Addl. District Judge, 1982(1) All. Rent Cases 337. However, since each of the quarters in question belong to the Cantonment Board, Meerut, which is a local authority it would be "public building" within the meaning of the said term defined in Section 3(o) of the Act and the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to it in view of Section 2(1)(a) thereof. No exception can, therefore, be taken to the finding in the impugned orders in this behalf.
(3.) THE findings that each of the petitioners was a lessee and not licensee of the Cantonment Board, Meerut, and that his tenancy had been duly terminated do not suffer from any such error which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.;