JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This is a landlord's petition. It is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Saharanpur as well as the Prescribed Authority, Saharanpur rejecting an application filed by the Petitioners u/s 21(i) and (1-A) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. The building in question is house No. 2497 Gill Colony, Saharanpur. The Petitioners are its landlords while the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner is the tenant of the same. The application of the landlord was made on the assertion that Petitioner No. 2 namely Hiralal Puri was in service of Andhra Pradesh Government as Inspector of Police, CID Branch. While the said Petitioner was in employment of the Andhra Pradesh Government he was allotted an official accommodation owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The said Petitioner retired from service in the year 1974. The Petitioner No. 3 was also in the service of Central Railways and was at present posted in Bombay. He too was due to retire shortly. They have no other accommodation available with them for residence after retirement. On these facts, the landlord claimed an order of release under the aforesaid provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Before the Courts below the Petitioner claimed the benefit of Sub-section (1-A) of Section 21 on the ground that one of the landlords was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of the cessation of his employment. The courts below have refused to consider the application of the Petitioners Under Clause (1-A) of Section 21 on the ground that the official accommodation which was allotted to the Petitioner was not situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. I am unable to accept the interpretation which the learned District Judge has placed upon the applicable provisions. Section 21(1-A) reads thus: (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 2, the prescribed authority shall, on the application of a landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from any building under tenancy, if it is satisfied that the landlord of such building was in occupation of a public building for residential purposes which he had to vacate on account of the cessation of his employment. Provided that an application under this Sub-section may also be given by a landlord in occupation of such public building at any time within a period of one year before the expected date of cessation of his employment, but the order of eviction on such application shall take effect only on his actual cessation. 4. The next relevant provision is Section 3(o) which defines a "public building" and the same reads thus: Public building" means any building belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government (including the Government of any other State) and includes any building belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any local authority or any public sector corporation. 5. The learned District Judge has held that the public building referred to in Sub-section (1-A) of Section 21 must necessarily be situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. He has referred to Section 1(3) which specifies the areas to which the Act extends. According to Section 1(3) the Act extends to every City, Municipality, Notified Area and Town Area etc. within the State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. From the fact that the State Government can not regulate the letting or eviction in respect of buildings situate outside the State of U.P., the learned District Judge concluded that the application of Section 21(1-A) must necessarily be limited and confined to those cases where the landlord was in occupation of an official accommodation situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. 7. I am unable to agree with the restriction which the learned District Judge has sought to place on the ambit of Section 21(1-A). In my view, the benefit of Section 21(1-A) ought to be available upon the plain terms thereof as well as Section 3(o) to all those cases where the landlords were in occupation of an official accommodation allotted to them which they have had to leave as a result of cessation of their employment, whether that official accommodation was situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh or outside. I see no ground either on the plain language of the Statute or the scheme underlying it which may warrant reading down Section (1-A) of Section 21 and limiting its application to those landlords only who were in occupation of official accommodation situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. I see no ground either on the plain language of the Statute or the scheme underlying it which may warrant reading down Section (1-A) of Section 21 and limiting its application to those landlords only who were in occupation of official accommodation situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh. Section 3(o) does not admit of any such restriction as has been sought to be placed upon it by the learned District Judge. It is wide in its amplitude and specifically extends the definition of "public building" to include, any building owned or taken on lease by or on behalf of the Governments of other states as well. 8. The mere fact that the authorities under the Act have no power to regulate the letting or eviction in regard to buildings situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh does not afford a valid ground for denying the benefit of Section 21(1-A) to the landlords who were in occupation of official buildings situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. 9. The basic intendment behind Section 21(1-A) is that a preferential right is sought to be conferred upon those landlords who are faced with the problem of finding a shelter for them upon retirement from Government service, as a result of having to vacate official accommodation allotted to them upon the cessation of their employment. If this is so, then I see no reason why Section 21(1-A) should be available even in the case of those landlords who were in occupation of official accommodation situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh which they have had to vacate on account of their retirement. 10. In granting to such landlords also the benefit of Section 21(1-A) it cannot be said that the authorities are directly or indirectly exercising any right of regulating the eviction or letting of accommodation situate outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is the event of having to vacate official accommodation which is important for the application of Sub-section(1-A) and this is a feature which is common to both the classes of landlords namely those who were in occupation of residential accommodation allotted to them within the State and those who were in such occupation outside the state. 11. The learned District Judge was therefore wrong in holding that the benefit of Sub-section (1-A) cannot be availed of by the Petitioners. 11. The learned District Judge was therefore wrong in holding that the benefit of Sub-section (1-A) cannot be availed of by the Petitioners. As the learned District Judge has dismissed the Petitioner's application u/s 21(1-A) on a preliminary ground, it is necessary to send back the case for being examined on merits in view of the interpretation which I have placed on Section 21(1-A). 12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned District Judge dated 29-11-1979 is quashed. The learned District Judge will now dispose of the Petitioner's appeal according to law having regard to the observations made in the judgment. There will be no orders as to costs.