T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises in the following circumstances: The opposite party is the owner "and landlord of the premises in question. The Petitioners were the tenants in the said premises. The opposite party terminated the tenancy by serving a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was a composite notice both under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said notice was served on the Petitioners on 9th March, 1979 but they failed to comply with the same, hence a suit was filed against them seeking their eviction from the said premises and also decree for Rs. 123/ - being the rent for period from 1st March, 1979 to 11th April, 1979 and a decree for Rs. 1200/ - being damages for use and occupation for the period 12th April, 1979 to the date of the filing of the suit. Pendente lite and future damages were also claimed. However, in the written statement filed by the State of U.P. it was admitted that it was the tenant of the Plaintiff at a monthly rent of Rs. 900/ -. It was also contended that the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 applied to the building hence the suit was not maintainable. Further It was pleaded that the notice was invalid. Bar of Section 15 of U.P. Act 22 of 1972, namely, The Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 was also pleaded. The trial Court held that the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 did not apply to the premises in question. It also held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of Section 15 of U.P. Act 22 of 1972. The validity of the notice was also upheld. The suit was accordingly decreed. The applicants have directed the instant revision against the said decision.
(2.) FOR the applicants the grounds urged in the written statement, namely, the building was governed by the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, that the notice was invalid and that the suit was barred by Section 15 of U.P. Act 22 of 1972 were reiterated before me. The petition has been opposed. The first contention on behalf of the applicants is that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act XIII of 1972) applied to the premises in question. I find no merits in this contention. Sub -section (1)(a) of Section 2 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 provides that nothing in the said Act shall apply to any public building. 'Public building' has been defined Under Section 3(o) as any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government (including the Government of any other State), and includes any building belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation. It is not in dispute that the building in question has been taken on lease by the State Government. That being the position the said building is a public building as defined in Section 3(o) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. As it is a public building, no provision of the said Act shall apply to the said premises. The Court below was, therefore, correct in holding that the provision of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 did not apply to the building in question.
(3.) THE other contention raised on behalf of the applicants that Section 15 of U.P. Act 22 of 1972 barred the said suit, has also no merits. Section 15 of the said Act reads as follows: No Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises or the recovery of the arrears of rent payable under Sub -section (1) of Section 7 or the damages payable under Sub -section (2) of that Section or the costs awarded to the State Government or the corporate authority under Sub -section (5) of Section 9 or any portion of such rent, damages or costs. Section 2(e) of U.P. Act 22 of 1972 defines "Public premises" as follows: Public premises" means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the State Government, and includes any premises belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of (i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty -one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government; or (ii) any local authority; or (iii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local authority) owned or controlled by the State Government; or (iv) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, I860, the governing body whereof consists, under the rules or regulations of the society, wholly of public officers or nominees of the State Government, or both and also includes - (i) Nazul land or any other premises entrusted to the management of a local authority (including any building built with Government funds on land belonging to the State Government after the entrustment of the land to that local authority, not being land vested in or entrusted to the management of a Gaon Sabha or any other local authority under any law relating to land tenures); (ii) any premises acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the consent of the State Government or a company (as defined in that Act) and held by that company under an agreement executed Under Section 41 of that Act providing for re -entry by the State Government in certain conditions. "Unauthorised occupation " has been defined as follows: 2 (g) "unauthorised occupation" in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer under which or the capacity in which he was allowed to hold or occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reasons whatsoever, and also includes continuance in occupation in the circumstances specified in Sub -section (i) of Section 7, and a person shall not, merely by reason of the fact that he had paid any amount as rent, be deemed to be in authorised occupation. In view of the definition of "unauthorised occupation" the occupation of the "public premises" should be without authority. Section 4 of the U.P. Act 22 of 1972 provides that if the Prescribed Authority either of its own motion or on an application or report received on behalf of the State Government or the corporate authority, is of opinion that any persons are in unauthorised occupation of any public premises and that they should be evicted, the Prescribed Authority shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon all persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. Section 5 provides that if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice issued Under Section 4 and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the public premises are in unauthorised occupation, the Prescribed Authority may make an order of eviction. There is nothing in the Act, U.P. Act 22 of 1972 which provides the eviction of the State Government itself from the public premises. The said U.P. Act 22 of 1972 deals with the eviction of other persons and not the State Government itself from the public premises. The Court below was, therefore, correct in holding that Section 15 of the said Act did not bar the suit.;