ORDER A. N. Varma, J. -This petition is directed against an order passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar allowing an application filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts relevant.for the determination of the issue involved in this petition are these: The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application purporting to be under Section 24-C (1) of the aforesaid U. P. Act No. XIII or 1972 claiming benefit of Section 24-B (1) of the aforesaid Act on these assertions. One Sri Bisham-bhar Saliai was the owner and landlord of premises No. 1460 New Mandi, Muzaffamagar of which the petitioner was a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 20/-. The other portion of his house was given by Bishambher Sahai to Shrimati Savitri Devi, wife of Hira Lal, father of Bishambher Sahai under a will long time ago. Shrimati Savitri Devi was thus the owner of that portion. The said Shrimati Savitri Devi has been realising rent from the petitioner on behalf of Bishambher Sahai, who had shifted to Meerut. 3. Later on Bishambher Sahai gifted the northern portion of the aforesaid dwelling house No. 146-C New Mandi to Shrimati Sheela Rani, respondent No. 3, wife of respondent No. 2. Dr. Banmali Saran, respondent No. 2 (who was the applicant No. 1 in, the said application) was an Veterinary Officer posted at Muzaffarnagar and was occupying a Government quarter allotted to him. The said Government quarter constituted a residential public building within the meaning of Section 24-B of the said Act. Dr. Banmali Saran had been served with a notice issued by the District Livestock Officer, Muzaffarnagar to vacate the said Government quarter. The applicants had no other house in which they might shift. Consequently, they asked the appellant to vacate the accommodation in his occupation, but the same request was turned down, and hence the application. 4. The application was contested by the petitioner who raised various pleas in opposition to the said application. It is not necessary to reproduce all the pleas taken by the petitioner. Consequently, they asked the appellant to vacate the accommodation in his occupation, but the same request was turned down, and hence the application. 4. The application was contested by the petitioner who raised various pleas in opposition to the said application. It is not necessary to reproduce all the pleas taken by the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under Section 24-C of the Act dismissed the said application on the ground that it was not established that Dr. Barmali Saran had been asked by the Government, the owner of the quarter in occupation of Dr. Banmali Saran, to vacate the same, and that consequently, the provisions of Section 24-B of the Act were not attracted to the facts of the present case. 5. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 thereupon filed an appeal purporting to be under Section 22 of the Act. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that no appeal lay under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act. The learned District Judge upheld the preliminary objection but came to the conclusion that under sub-clause (7) of Section 24-C of the Act, though no appeal or second appeal was provided for recovery of possession, in a case covered by Section 24-B of the Act, there was power in the District Judge to consider the legality of orders passed by the District Magistrate under Section 24-C of the Act. He consequently allowed the appeal to be converted into a Revision and considered the various questions involved in the case on merits. He came to the conclusion that the building in question was a public building, and that the respondent No. 2 had been served with a notice issued by an officer authorised to issue such a notice to vacate the said public building on the ground that his wife had acquired a residential building in the same town, namely, the building in question. The learned District Judge also overruled the objection raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the building in question is not a residential building. On these findings, he came to the conclusion that Section 24-B was clearly attracted to the facts of the case and he consequently allowed the application of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and directed the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. 6. On these findings, he came to the conclusion that Section 24-B was clearly attracted to the facts of the case and he consequently allowed the application of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and directed the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid findings. In-addition, he has also raised the question, of jurisdiction, namely, that on the own showing of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, it is only the respondent No. 3 who claimed to be the owner and landlady of the accommodation in dispute, and that Dr. Banmali Saran, not being the landlord of the accommodation in dispute, the fact that he was served with a notice to vacate by the District Livestock Officer to vacate the official quarter could not attract the provisions of Section 24-B of the Act. Learned counsel contended that On the averments made in the application of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the application was incompetent in law and consequently the order passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view that so far as the finding of the learned District Judge on the issue whether the building in occupation of the petitioner is a residential building or not, the same is correct and calls for no interference by this Court. I also agree with the learned District Judge that the notice issued to Dr Banmali Saran to vacate the accommodation was also the kind of notice which is contemplated under Section 24-B of the Act. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice to vacate should have come from the Government. The Government acts through its functionaries. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had produced material before the learned District Judge to satisfy him that the District Livestock Officer was empowered to issue notices to vacate. The authority of the District Livestock Officer was not questioned before the learned District Judge. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the: learned District Judge that the notice contemplated under Section 24-B of the Act was in fact served upon Dr. Banmali Saran.. to vacate the accommodation in dispute. 8. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Dr. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the: learned District Judge that the notice contemplated under Section 24-B of the Act was in fact served upon Dr. Banmali Saran.. to vacate the accommodation in dispute. 8. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Dr. Banmali Saran not being the landlord of the accommodation in dispute, that is, the accommodation which, is in the occupation and tenancy of the petitioner Section 24-B would not apply deserves serious consideration. The averment made in the application moved by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 seems to indicate that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were setting up only the respondent No. 3 as the owner landlord of the accommodation in dispute. It is also asserted in the same application that it is the respondent No. 3 who had served the notice on the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in dispute. In the application, there is no assertion that Dr. Banmali Saran is either the owner or the landlord of the accommodation in dispute. From a reading of Section 24-B (1) of the aforesaid Act, it is indisputable that if Ur. Banmali Saran is not the landlord of the accommodation in dispute, the provisions of Section 24-B will have no application to the facts of the present case even on the findings recorded by the learned District Judge. However, the plea that Dr. Banmali Saran is not the landlord and, therefore, not entitled to make an application under Section 24-B of the Act does not appear to have been raised either before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, or even before the learned District Judge. It is, therefore, necessary to remand the case to the learned District Judge for a finding whether Dr. Banmali Saran is the landlord of the accommodation m dispute. If the learned District Judge comes to the conclusion that he is not the landlord of the accommodation in dispute, the application filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 will have to be dismissed as incompetent in law. 9. For the reasons stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge dated 23-8-1975 is quashed. The case is remanded to respondent No. 1 for being disposed of according to law having regard to the observations made by this court in this Judgment. 9. For the reasons stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge dated 23-8-1975 is quashed. The case is remanded to respondent No. 1 for being disposed of according to law having regard to the observations made by this court in this Judgment. The learned District Judge will try and dispose of the case within a period of three months from today. 10. The parties will bear their own costs of this petition.