- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16-7-1997, al lowing the release application filed by landlady-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (l) (a) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) and the order of the appel late authority Respondent No. 1, dismiss ing the appeal against the said order on 4-12-1998.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed an applica tion for release against the petitioners under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act on the allegation that she purchased the house in question by registered sale-deed on 21-1-1966. She let out the accommodation in question to petitioner No. 1 on 15-7-1977 at monthly rent of Rs. 350/ -. She requires the disputed accommodation for residen tial purpose. Her family consists of her husband, one son and a daughter Prakashwati who is widow. She has in her accom modation only one Kothari for residential purpose, which is hardly sufficient for her family members. It was denied by the petitioners that the need of the landlady was bona fide and genuine. It was further stated that the accommodation was let out to the institution Bal Vidya Mandir. The prescribed authority found that accom modation in question was let out to Km. Manju Sharma, petitioner No. 1 and not to the institution. On the facts it was found that the landlady requires the premises in question for her residential purpose. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. RESPONDENT No. 1 has dismissed the appeal on 4-12-1998. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Deo Raj, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petiti oners contended that the application filed by respondent No. 3 was riot maintainable as the accommodation was let out to an educational institution. An application u/s. 21 (l) (a) is barred in view of the pro visions of S. 21 (8) of the Act which prov ides that nothing in clause (a) of sub-sec tion (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Govt. or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recog nised educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord-is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-sec tion (1) is applicable. The recognised educational institution has been defined u/s. 3 (q) of the Act which reads as under- "recognisqd educational institution", means (any University established by law in India, or) 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. "
(3.) THE prescribed authority recorded a finding that the accommodation was let out to the petitioner and not to the institu tion. Secondly, the petitioner himself has filed a document (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) which indicates that the school run by petitioner No. 1 was recog nised by Basieshiksha Adhikari in the year 1987. The petitioner was admittedly a tenant since 1977. Under the definition of Section 3 (q) of the Act, referred to above, it is only a recognised institution either under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 which is lo be taken into account for the purpose of exemption under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. On the facts found by the authorities;