- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlord's writ petition directed against order dated 7-9-1990 passed by District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar allowing application of Mahendra Kumar, respondent No. 2 under Section 31/33 of U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ). Through the impugned order it has been held that landlord did not inform about the vacancy in accordance with law (Section 15 of the Act), hence he was liable to be prosecuted under Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Act. Ultimately, through the impugned order applicant Mahendra Kumar was authorized to institute complaint in that regard, in terms of Section 33 (1) of the Act which is quoted below alongwith Section 31 (1) of the Act: "31 (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act. . . . . . . . . . shall be punished. . . . . . . . . . 33 (5) No prosecution for an offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted except on a complaint authorized by the D. M. "
(2.) PROPERTY in dispute belongs to M/s. Harish Sugar Company, Muzaffarnagar and Harish Kumar, petitioner is Managing Director of the said company. The two accommodations regarding which application was filed by respondent No. 2 are part of the building which was purchased by the petitioner company in the year 1987. By virtue of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act any building built and held by a company for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servants is exempt from the operation of the Act. After vacation of the portions in dispute by their tenants, petitioner company also got released the said portions under Section 16 of the Act for the use of the company by R. C. & E. O brought order dated 25-3-1988 which are Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition. The case of the petitioner-company is that even though provisions of Rent Regulation Act were not applicable on the premises in dispute still by way of abundant precaution the same were got released under Section 16 of the Act after their vacation by the previous tenants. Supreme Court in S. N. Pandey v. State of U. P. , 1988 (1) ARC 193, has held that even a building which might have belonged to private individuals since 1972 will automatically fall with the exemption clause as soon as it is purchased by Government etc. covered by the exemption Clause 2 (1 ). The said exemption clause includes company also, hence after purchase of the property by the company, Act ceased to apply to the building in dispute.
(3.) EVEN if it is held that Act continued to apply even after purchase of the building by the company the fact that it was released under Section 16 of the Act by R. C. and E. O. in favour of the petitioner company was sufficient to absolve the company from the criminal liability provided under Sections 31 to 33 of the Act. Under Section 15 of the Act it is necessary for the landlord to intimate the vacancy not later than seven days after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, under Section 15 (4) of the Act District Magistrate on being satisfied on an application made to him in that behalf may condone the delay, in intimating the vacancy. Releasing the building in favour of the landlord may taken to be implied condonation of landlord's fault of not intimating the vacancy within seven days. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 7- 9-1990 passed by D. M. Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 36 of 1987-1988, Mahendra Kumar v. Harish Kumar Chhabra, is quashed. Petition allowed. .;