TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a building taken on lease by the State Government falls within the expression "public building" under section 3(o) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 so as to be exempt from the Act under section 2(1)(a), and whether a landlord could therefore maintain a civil suit for eviction after termination of tenancy.
Analysis: The definition of "public building" inserted by the 1976 amendment was of wide language and extended not only to buildings owned by the Government but also to buildings taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government, and similarly to buildings held by local authorities and public sector corporations. The building in question was on lease to the State Government and therefore satisfied that definition. The contention that the provision should be confined to premises where the Government was owner or landlord was rejected because such a construction would disregard the deliberate change in language introduced by the 1976 amendment and would treat the amendment as a mere repetition of the earlier law. The legislative history and the later amendments did not justify reading back the narrower pre-amendment position. The argument based on section 21(8) was also rejected because that provision, read with section 21(1A), did not render the broader meaning of section 3(o) otiose.
Conclusion: A building leased by the State Government is a "public building" within section 3(o), and the Act does not apply to it under section 2(1)(a) for the relevant period. The landlord's civil suit for possession was maintainable, and the appellant's defence failed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
