- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent filed by landlord-respondent No. 2 Banaras Hindu University in the form of Suit (S. C. C. Suit) No. 728 of 1978 before the J. S. C. C. Varanasi. Property in dispute is two room residential accommodation on the second floor rent of which is Rs. 19 per month.
(2.) TRIAL Court held that notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was not proved to be served upon the tenant. However, the trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff-landlord that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable on the building in dispute by virtue of Section 2 (a) read with Sections 3 (o) and 3 (p) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. As they stood at that time. By virtue of the said provisions the Act was not applicable to a building belonging to public sector Corporation. The suit for eviction was, therefore, dismissed. However, it was decreed for recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 19- 7-1983. Against the said judgment and decree respondent No. 2 filed Civil Revision No. 211 of 1983. Revisional Court/ist A. D. J. Varanasi held that service of notice was proved as in para 20 of the written statement the only thing which was stated was that notice of the plaintiff was illegal. Revisional Court also recorded a finding that the tenant herself did not enter the witness box to deny service of notice. In para 4 of the plaint it was stated that notice was sent on 22- 7-1977 and served on 26-7-1977. In reply to the said para tenant in para 20 of the written statement stated that notice was illegal. This clearly amounted to admission of service of notice. Accordingly I hold that on the issue of service of notice finding of the revisional Court is perfectly correct and legal. Contrary finding of the trial Court was clearly erroneous in law. The revisional Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute, hence suit for ejectment was also decreed by the revisional Court. The revisional Court allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 17-2-1988, hence this writ petition.
(3.) AS far as the finding of non-applicability of the Act during the period when suit was filed and decided by the trial Court is concerned, I do not agree with the view of the Courts below. Sections 2 (1) (a), (b), 3 (o), 3 (p) and 3 (q), as they stood at the relevant time are quoted below: "2. Exemption from operation of Act.- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to - (a) any public building; or (b) any building belonging to or vested in a recognised educational institution, the whole or the income from which is utilised for the purposes of such institution; xxx xxx xxx 3. Definitions xxx xxx xxx (o) "public building", means 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; xxx xxx xxx (p) "public sector corporation" means any corporation owned or controlled by the Government, and includes any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the Government; (q) "recognized educational institution" means any institution recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 or recognised or affiliated under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973''. The Courts below held that University is included in the definition of 'public sector corporation'. It is correct that technically University may also be described as Corporation vide Board of Trustees A. U. T. C. Delhi v. State of Delhi, AIR 1962 SC 458, followed in Constitution Bench authority of Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 973 (Para 5 ). However, in the Act at the relevant time exemption from operation of the Act was granted to different types of buildings, including buildings belonging to Public Sector Corporation [section 2 (1) (a)] and building belonging to a recognised educational institution [2 (1) (b)]. A University is more likely to fall under the clause of 'educational institution' 'than Corporation'. At the relevant time University was not included under the definition of recognised educational institution. Benaras Hindu University being a Central University could not, therefore, claim to be included in the definition of recognised educational institution at the relevant time.;