- (1.) Heard standing counsel for the State and Sri. K.N. Saxena appearing for the Respondent landlord.
(2.) It is not disputed that the building in question is occupied by the Petitioners as tenants. The order impugned in the writ petition has been passed under the proviso to Section 21(8) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Learned Standing Counsel urged that nothing contained in the Act would apply to a "public building" and further that the building being in occupation of the State Government shall be deemed to be a "public building" within the meaning of Section 3(o) of the said Act.
(3.) Submission made by the learned standing counsel is devoid of merits. What is exempted under Section 2(1)(a) is a building of which the State Government, or Local Authority, or Public Sector, Corporation or Cantonment Board is the landlord and not to a building of which the State Government may be a tenant. It is evident from Sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act that the landlord of a building in occupation of State Government as its tenant cannot file release application on ground of bona fide need comprehended by Clause (a] of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, but then such a landlord can apply for enhancement of rent under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of Section 21. Rent Control and Eviction Officer exercising power of the District Magistrate has, on proper self-direction to the relevant factors, determined the monthly rent payable for the building in question. The order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rightly been maintained by the learned District Judge and no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution.;