D.N. Jha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution has been directed against the judgment and order dated 1 -10 -85 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Lucknow.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the Petitioner had filed an application Under Section 21 of the Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter to be referred as the Act. This application was for release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that the Petitioner's need for the same was bona fide. The prescribed Authority found that the opposite -parties were duty served and had not come forward; hence he preceded ex -parte. The trial court believed the bona fide need of the applicant and ordered for the release of the accommodation in favour of the Petitioner. While the order was being sought to be executed, the opposite -parties rushed to the executing court and made a request for staying the proceedings alleging that they had no knowledge of the impugned proceedings but their prayer was turned down by the executing court holding that the writ of execution was already issued. The Respondent Director Ayurvedic and Unani Office along with Area Ayurvedic and Unani Adhikari challenged the order in appeal. The main ground raised before the lower appellate court is that the Act did not apply to the building in question as it was under the tenancy of a Government department. The appeal was allowed and the judgment and order was quashed and this is how the petition is preferred before this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the virus of Section 21, Sub -section (8), on the ground that it was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution and, secondly, it impairs the human dignity. As regards the provision contravening Article 14 of the Constitution, I do not find any force. A division Bench of this Court in Bali Karan Lal v. District Judge, Basti : 1985 AWC 435 held: Article 14 forbids, class legislation. It does not forbid classification for purposes of implementing the right of equality guaranteed by it. The landlords in respect of buildings held under tenancy by the State Government, the local authority, the public sector corporation or a recognised institution, as the case may be, constitute a distinct class. The restraint imposed against the eviction in the manner provided in Section 21(1)(a) is founded on the legislative policy that there is public need sub served with the occupation of these buildings by this class of tenants and if evicted, an alternative suitable accommodation for the purposes of occupation by this class as tenants may not be easily available.
(3.) IN my opinion, the view expressed is in keeping with the legislative policy and in case the tenancy is in the hands of the State Government or other authorities enumerated in Sub -section (8), it dispenses the question of comparison. It proceeds on general assumption which the Legislature in its wisdom is entitled to make, namely, that in such cases the balance of hardship would lay in favour of the State Government or other specified authorities. The decisive factor is not the bare legislative policy but the consideration that the impugned provision contained in Sub -section (8) of Section 21 implements the legislative intent and as such it cannot be classed as arbitrary.;