ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of a suit filed by the respondent No. 3 Smt. Raj Rani against the petitioner U.P. State Road Transport Corporation for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages. The property in dispute is shop Nos. 1 and 2 situate at Lala Bazar, Qasba Bilaspur district Rampur. The petitioner Corporation is tenant in the said shops on monthly rent of Rs. 30/- per mensem and is using the accommodation for issuing tickets to the passengers. On 14th March, 1978 the above mentioned suit No. 39 of 1978 was filed by Smt. Raj Rani on the ground that in spite of notice dated 16th January, 1978, terminating the tenancy which was served on the petitioner on 30th January, 1978. The petitioner had not vacated the premises. It was further urged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent and as such was liable for ejectment. The Judge Small Causes Court, Rampur decreed the suit on 25th January, 1979, holding that the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 apply to the case. There was a default on the part of the petitioner and as such the suit was decreed. Against decision dated 25-1-1979 the petitioner filed a revision before the Dishevel Judge Rampur. The revision came up for hearing before the II Additional District Judge, Rampur, who by judgment dated 18th September, 1979, dismissed the revision. Aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25-1-1979 and 18-9-1979 by means of the present petition. 2. Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended firstly that the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 apply and as such the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act as he had deposited the arrears of rent on 20th September, 1978, which was the date for filing of the written statement. Secondly, he has contended that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. Shri R.K. Singhal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has, however, contended that since the petitioner is a Public Sector Corporation, the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 do not apply and as such no benefit can be taken by the petitioner of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 3. Shri R.K. Singhal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has, however, contended that since the petitioner is a Public Sector Corporation, the provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 do not apply and as such no benefit can be taken by the petitioner of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act. In reply to the second submission made by the petitioner, learned counsel has contended that there was no written agreement between the parties and as such the question of applicability of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act does not arise at all. 4. Section 2 of the Act lays down the buildings which are exempted under the Act. Section 2 (a) exempts 'public building' from coming under the operation of "the Act. However, 'public building' has been defined in S. 3 (o) of the Act. Public building according to the definition includes any building belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation. Admittedly, the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation is a public sector corporation and, therefore, it would be a public building within the meaning of Section 3 (o) of the Act. Since the building in dispute would be a public building as it was leased out to a public corporation, the provision of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 would not apply to the said building. Since the provisions of the said Act do not apply it is not necessary for me to consider the submission made by the learned for the petitioner that it is entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 5. Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act entitles a lessee for relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent. In the instant case, there is no agreement of lease between the parties. The lease has not been forfeited for non-payment of rent. In the circumstances, Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Praduman Kumar v. Virendra Goyal, AIR 1969 SC 1349 . The principle laid down in the case of Praduman Kumar (supra) would not apply because as I have already held above, there was no agreement of lease between the parties and neither there was any question of forfeiture for non-payment of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Praduman Kumar v. Virendra Goyal, AIR 1969 SC 1349 . The principle laid down in the case of Praduman Kumar (supra) would not apply because as I have already held above, there was no agreement of lease between the parties and neither there was any question of forfeiture for non-payment of rent. It is only in a case where there is a forfeiture of a lease because of non-payment of rent that the provisions of Sec. 114 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply. 7. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that both the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not well founded. 8. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, prays for time to vacate the premises. This request made on behalf of the petitioner is in my opinion justified. The petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate the premises during which period it will be able to make alternative arrangement. After expiry of six months the petitioner is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the opposite party No. 3. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.