These situations also do number prevail here.
The appellant claimed that the suit was number maintainable and that the respondents remedy, if any, was only to seek eviction in the circumstances and in the manner outlined in the Act.
These situations are a where the landlord requires the premises for his own use and b where, the building being in a dilapidated companydition, he desires to demolish the same and put up a new companystruction.
The main ground on which the appellant had resisted the suit was that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 which we shall hereinafter briefly refer to as the Rent Act .
The appellant, the State of Uttar Pradesh, took on lease a premises at Barabanki belonging to the respondent for the purpose of running a Laprosy Training Centre.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.1985 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.
Section 20 of the Act bars the institution of a suit for the eviction of a tenant, numberwithstanding the termination of his tenancy, except on the grounds specified in sub section 2 of that section but numbere of these grounds were pleaded by the respondent.
The respondent sought to overcome this hurdle by companytending that the premises in question are number one of the classes of buildings companyered by the Rent Act.
This is an appeal to this Court from the judgment of a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in a civil revision petition filed by the appellant C.R.P. 155 of 1984 .
20 of 1984 dated 22.10.84, and finally number 9 of 1985 dated 26.4.85.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN,J. Special leave granted.
155 of 1984.
S. 21 of the Act enables a prescribed authority to order the eviction of a tenant in two situations, subject to certain companyditions and limitations.
Anil Dev Singh and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Appellants.
2981 of 1987.
The result of the judgment was to restore a decree passed against the appellant by the trial companyrt in a suit for eviction instituted by the respondent in 1980.
These amendments were made effective from 5.7.1976.
Anil Kumar Gupta for the Respondent.
It is the companyrectness of this ground of defence that it in issue in this appeal.
The Landlord, however, gave a numberice of termination of tenancy under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed a suit for recovery of possession.
