JUDGMENT : Satish Chandra, CJ. Union of India and the Superintendent, Railway Mail Service have filed this writ petition challenging the validity of an order of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Hardwar fixing the rent payable by the petitioners for the accommodation as tenants at Rs. 600/- per month from 1-12-1976. 2. The admitted position is that respondent no. 2 is a public charitable Trust which owns the buildings a part of which has been let out to the Union of India for running the Railway Mail Service. The agreed rent was Rs. 375/- per month. The landlord the Trust made an application under section 9-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Reg. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for revision of the monthly rent. This application was opposed by the petitioner but as already indicated, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer enhanced the rent to Rs. 600/- per month. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that section 9-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. was not at all attracted nor was it applicable to the instant case. Section 2(1) (a) of the Act says that "nothing in this Act shall apply to any public building." The term 'public building' has been defined in section 3 (o) as follows:- "Public building" means any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Govt, or a State Govt, (including the Government of any other State), and................" 4. Here, the building in question was taken on rent by the Central Government. The accommodation hence, became a public building. As defined nothing in this Act shall apply to any such public building. There is nothing in section 9-A specifically making it applicable to public building. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 9-A in respect of a public building. The proceedings and the impugned order were totally without jurisdiction. 5. In this view it is not necessary to deal with the other points raised by the petitioners that the Railway Mail Service was not a commercial service within the meaning of section 9-A or that the rent was not correctly determined. 6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is quashed There is no order as to costs.