JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Pilibhit passed in the revision preferred by respondents 4 and 5 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 2. The respondents 4 and 5 filed a suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes for ejectment of the Union of India from house No. 564 situate in Mohalla Faizullah Khan, Pilibhit and for recovery of arrears of rent. The allegations made in the plaint were that the Union of India was occupying the premises on a rental of Rs. 100/- p.m. but as the respondent did not want to continue its tenancy. The Union of India was served with notices under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 80, C.P.C. After service of these notices, the suit was filed for the reliefs, stated above. 3. The suit was contested by Union of India on a number of grounds including that as Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable to the building, the landlord could not get the decree for ejectment without establishing one of the grounds mentioned in Section 20 of the aforesaid Act. 4. The Judge Small Cause on 26.2.1976 dismissed the suit for ejectment and decreed the same only for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Against this judgment respondent No. 4 went up in revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was accepted under the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court Judge was set aside. Consequently the suit for the ejectment was also decreed, have the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the suit was barred under Section 20 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He urged that as the building occupied by the petitioner was covered by the said Act the decree for ejectment granted was illegal. For the said argument, learned counsel took us through the various provisions of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and urged that as to a building let out to Central Government or State Government the Act was applicable, the Court below should have dismissed the suit. 6. This question came up for consideration before a Division of this Court in 1978 (U.P.) Rent Control Cases, page 105. 6. This question came up for consideration before a Division of this Court in 1978 (U.P.) Rent Control Cases, page 105. In that case the tenant of the premises was a Bank and a similar argument relating to the bar or filling a suit for ejectment on the ground of Section 20(1) was made. The Division Bench replied the argument holding that because of Section 2, the building was exempted from application of the Act and, as such, the suit was not barred by Section 20(1). Consequently, the argument of the Union of India that the present suit was not maintainable without proving any of the grounds given in sub-section (2) of Section 20 could not be accepted. 7. But, there is another important feature of the case which is required to be mentioned here. During the pendency of the suit, the premises in question was notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. These notifications have been challenged in writ petition No. 3536 of 1974. This writ petition has been dismissed by us today. As a result of dismissal of the writ petition, the acquisition of the premises for the Postal Department is valid. Consequently, the right, title and interest of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were extinguished, and they have no right left to execute the decree for ejectment. Hence, the decree of the learned Additional Distt. Judge is liable to be set aside on that ground. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, dated 13.8.1976 is quashed. No order as to costs.