Judgment Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. The petitioner, the Managing Committee, Balika Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Commonly known as Atarra Balika Vidyalaya) has filed the present petition impugning and order dated 17 November, 1980, annexure 2' to the writ petition passed by the respondent no. 6, the District Magistrate, Banda, by which, in effect/the school which it runs from the building of the Zila Parishad, Banda, is required by the latter for permitting the State Government to run she Government Girls Ucchatan Madhyamik Vidyalaya. This decisions of the District Magistrate, Banda, aggrieves the petitioner as between the school run by the petitioner and Intended to be run by the State, there is rivalry. In short, the issues in the petition are that given an occasion the Zila Parishad ought not to invite the State Government to run a school from the building This building otherwise has been rented out to the petitioner by the Zila Parishad. The lease between the petitioner and the District Magistrate, Banda contains the terms and conditions upon which the building of the Zila Parishad has been rented out to the petitioner. The modality of inducting the petitioner as a tenant are contained in the lease deed and the conditions of seeking vacant possession of the premises are also Enumerated in the same lease deed. 2. As needs of the public, inevitably, increase in every district, in reference to educational programmes, and Banda is no exception, it was indicated to the petitioner that the Zila Parishad building will be required for opening a Government Girls Intermediate College from the same building from which the petitioner, as a private organisation, is running a school. The communication by which the petitioner was intimated that the building is required for running a government school is the impugned annexure. The only issue is whether the impugned annexure suffers from any error which needs to be corrected by a writ of certiorari or any manifest illegality upon which the Court has good and sufficient reasons to quash it. 3. The issue is not of eviction or vacating the premises but whether in principle there is any thing irregular in the request of the Zila Parishad to the petitioner to seek the premises In part or as a whole for a government run girls school. 3. The issue is not of eviction or vacating the premises but whether in principle there is any thing irregular in the request of the Zila Parishad to the petitioner to seek the premises In part or as a whole for a government run girls school. There is a communication by which the District Magistrate had even gone to the extent in letting the petitioner know that there may be a phased withdrawal from the building as an initial step and in case any student of the school run by the petitioner needs to be accommodated, the government school is under a commitment to absorb those students. The issue before the Court is, thus, also not of any inconvenience to the students body in generality as the government has committed itself to grant admission to such students. The class rooms will remain, only the order which runs the school will change. 4. The submission which has been made before the Court on behalf of the petitioner are (1) that the petitioner can only be evicted in due course of laws (2) that the Zila Parishad does not have need for the building and there is no occasion for requiring the petitioner to vacate it ; (3) that the State Government has started looking around for an alternate site to build another school, thus, it has no need for the present building for using it as a school and (4) a notice to quit as under the agreement has not been given to the petitioner, consequently the petitioner cannot be required to vacate the building. Noticing the submissions of the petitioner on the termination of the lease first, that there has been no notice as under the agreement may be alright in theory but not in equity. That this writ petition has remained pending for 13 years at the High Court is itself sufficient notice to but the petitioner on guard on what exactly the District Magistrate, Banda had intended in his letter dated 17 November, 1980 impugned in the petition. This letter is, in effect, the notice which the petitioner is looking for and more than six months notice to quit has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has frustrated the District Magistrate's planning for children’s need for thirteen years. 5. This letter is, in effect, the notice which the petitioner is looking for and more than six months notice to quit has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner has frustrated the District Magistrate's planning for children’s need for thirteen years. 5. In so far as the need of the Zila Parishad is concerned to permit the State to run a school, the Court is of the view, is the need of the local area and this need would best be assessed, in a matter like this, by the District Magistrate and the Collector and not by this Court. The Court cannot ignore the circumstance that the need of the children for more schools in this district must have been increased, The District Magistrate has not asked the petitioner to shut down his school but only indicated that the State Government also Intends to establish a school of its own. The petitioner may run a school in the district from anywhere else and a State school in addition will also be established. But, Zila Parishad is a public and a local body. It can plan for a State sponsored school to run from it's building. 6. The next argument is that it is on record that the district administration is arranging land for the purposes of establishing a school and, thus, there is no urgent need in requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises. The rights of the petitioner flow from the lease agreement. The petitioner cannot question the plan of the district administration to establish a school, as the same logic goes against petitioner. The petitioner's submission is that the State must purchase land if it wants to ran a government school and the petitioner would continue to run it's school from the building rented out to it by the local body. The argument is sound as an investment in business but will not hold in law to satisfy a public need. The same logic can meet the petitioner. The petitioner can run it's school elsewhere, and the Zila Parishad would like to cater to the school needs of the children from its building between these two propositions, the Court ought not to judge. The same logic can meet the petitioner. The petitioner can run it's school elsewhere, and the Zila Parishad would like to cater to the school needs of the children from its building between these two propositions, the Court ought not to judge. The balance which remains is that there is no illegality when the petitioner was told by the district administration that it proposes to establish a government school in the building of the Zila Parishad and it may consider a plan of a phased withdrawal from the building to another place. The solemnity of the agreement cannot be breached by the petitioner; and to suggest that eviction can only be as provided by law, is suggesting litigation. The Zila Parishad only sought it's rights under the lease agreement. There is no illegality in it. 7. The premises in any case were assigned to the petitioner as a temporary measure as annexure-'3' to the counter affidavit, dated 30 January, 1981, reveals. The contention in arguments and also in the rejoinder affidavit is that this document is a waste paper. The argument is self defeating. The record is not denied and the petitioner accepts it's status as a tenant 8. The State Government and the District Magistrate has not interfered with petitioner in carrying on an educational activity but the petitioner cannot insist that the local administration will not have it's educational programme from it's building. In these circumstances, there is no error in the impugned communication of the District Magistrate, Banda dated 17 November, 1980, also circulated to the petitioner amongst many other local government offices. This Court, thus, declines to quash this order of the District Magistrate Banda. 9. The petition is, thus, devoid of merits and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.