P. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 3-4-1995 passed by II Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 146 of 1992, by which she has dismissed the appeal filed by tenant-petitioner-State of U. P. and affirmed the order dated 5-12-1992 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge/prescribed Authority, Dehradun in P. A. Case No. 76 of 1987, directing the tenant-opposite party to vacate the premises in question. ( 2 ) A short but an interesting question arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether provision of sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be called as the Act) is attracted and creates a absolute bar of moving an application on the ground contained in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act in respect of the residential building only or creates absolute bar on non-residential building also. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-State of U. P. , now the State of Uttaranchal after the appointed day, is a tenant of the accommodation in question containing appurtenant land No. 46, E. C. Road, Dehradun and the accommodation is governed by the Act. An application under Clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 21 of the Act was moved by the landlord-respondent No. 3 for the release of the building on the ground of bona fide need elaborated in the application. An objection was raised by the State of U. P. before the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate Court that the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not maintainable as provisions of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act are not applicable to the building sought to be released as the building is let out to the State Government. ( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate authority concluded that all the clauses of the explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 21 provide provision for residential buildings. Therefore, the bar created under sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act was not attracted in the present case as the building in question was non-residential. Therefore, rejected the objection of the State-petitioner and held the application to be maintainable. Therefore, the bar created under sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act was not attracted in the present case as the building in question was non-residential. Therefore, rejected the objection of the State-petitioner and held the application to be maintainable. ( 5 ) WHETHER the sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act applies to the residential building only or it also applies to non-residential building, is to be examined. Section 21 (1) (a), explanation appended to sub-section (1) and sub-section (8) ofthe Act is reproduced as under :-"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely,- (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any menber of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposs or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a publoic charitable trust for the objcts of the trust; explanation.- In the caseof a residential building :- (i) where the tenant or any member of his family who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependent on him has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition, a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained. [note.- For the purposes of this clause, a person shall be deemed to have otherwise acquired a building, if he is occupying a public building for residential purposes as a tenant, allottee or licensee]. [note.- For the purposes of this clause, a person shall be deemed to have otherwise acquired a building, if he is occupying a public building for residential purposes as a tenant, allottee or licensee]. (ii) (deleted) (iii) Where the landlord of any building is:- a. a serving or retired India soldier as defined in the India Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (IV of 1925), and such building was let out at any time before his retirement, or b. a widow of such a soldier and such building was let out any time before the retirement or death of her husband, whichever occurred earlier, and such landlord needs such building for occupation by himself or the members of his family for residential purposes, then his representation that he needs the building for residential purposes for himself or the members of his family shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of Clause (a), and where such landlord owns more than one building this provision shall apply in respect of one building only. (iv) (deleted) x x x x x x x (8) Nothing in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognized educational institution unless the Prescribed is satisfied that the landlord is a person t whom Clause (ii) or Clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable : provided that in the case of such a building, the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefore to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application : provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of fice years from the date of the last order of enhancement. " ( 6 ) EXPLANATIONS (ii) and (iv) have been deleted by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 w. e. f. 5-7-1976. " ( 6 ) EXPLANATIONS (ii) and (iv) have been deleted by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1976 w. e. f. 5-7-1976. Prior to its deletion an application udner Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act could be moved for release of a building by landlords who were in the category of landlrods under Clause (ii) and Clause (iv) of the explanation of sub-section (1 ). After the deletion of clauses (ii) and (iv) of explanation, no landlord could move for release of a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognized educational institution in view of sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act. An analysis of sub-section (8) of Section 21 clearly shows that only clauses of landlords under Clause (ii) or Clause (iv) of the explanation to sub-section (1) could move application for release of accommodation let out to the State Government in clause 9a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21. In other words it permitted only two clauses of the landlords contained in Clauses (ii) and (iv) of explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act to move application for release under Clause (a) of sub-section (1 ). Sub-secton (8) of Section 21 of the Act does not categories the residential or non-residential building. It only says that nothing in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to public sector corporation or to a recognized educational institution. ( 7 ) IT is settled rule of interpretation that no word can be added in a Section in order to give a particular construction. The legislatures have not classified the word 'buildingin sub-section (8) by adding either residential or non-residential before the word 'building'. Therefore, it is incorrect construction of sub-section (8) that it is attracted only in case of residential 'buildingonly in view of explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 21 as the explanation deals with residential building alone. The legislatures have not classified the word 'buildingin sub-section (8) by adding either residential or non-residential before the word 'building'. Therefore, it is incorrect construction of sub-section (8) that it is attracted only in case of residential 'buildingonly in view of explanation appended to sub-section (1) of Section 21 as the explanation deals with residential building alone. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (8) is an independent Section and excludes the applicability of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognised educational institution after the detention of Clause (ii) and clause (iv) of explanation of sub-section (1 ). Before its deletion the landlords as classified under Clause (ii) and Clause (iv) could move an application being the owners of the building let out to the State Governmetn or the local authority or the public sector corporation or to a recognized educational institution. As seen above second part of sub-section (8) only categories the two clauses of the landlords who could move the application under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. It is a legislation by referential incorporation as the sub-section (8) of Section 21 by specific reference incorporated the provisions of explanations (ii) and (iv) to specify the landlords who could move the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act despite the bar created under this sub-section for rest of the "landlords". Since it was a legislation by referential incorporation of the provisions of explanations (ii) and (iv), therefore after its deletion those categories also stood ousted from exemption given in second part of sub-section (8 ). ( 9 ) THE Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Shiv Narain Chaudhary v. District Judge, Allahabad, reported in (1982) 1 All Rent Cas 441 : (1982 0 Alllj 873) has held that,"in the first part of Section 21 (8), building let out to the authorities mentioned therein cannt be subject-matter of a release application under Section 21 (2) unless the landlord is a person to whom Clause (ii) or (iv) or the Explanation to that sub-section was applicable. Now Act 28 of 1976 deleted Clauses (ii) and (iv) of the Explanation. Now Act 28 of 1976 deleted Clauses (ii) and (iv) of the Explanation. The result of that deletion was that an application under Section 21 (1)9a) could not be made in respect of buildings described in the first part of Section 21 (8)". ( 10 ) THE respondent No. 3 filed an application with which the order of the Labour Commissioner, is annexed to show that the Labour Commissioner does not want to retain the premises and directed his subordinate to vacate the premises. This letter is prior to the appointed day i. e. 9-11-000. After creation of State of Uttaranchal, an affidavit has been filed by the State of Uttaranchal refuting the avermentsmade in the application and it has categorically been stated that now because the separate State has been created, therefore, the accommodation is needed for the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner. In view of this affidavit filed by the petitioner no benefit of the letter of the Labour Commissoner is available to the respondent No. 3. ( 11 ) THUS, the view taken by the appellate authority as well as the Prescrbed Authroity is manifestly erroneous. The application of the respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act should have been rejected in view of provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act. ( 12 ) THEREFORE, writ petition is allowed. Writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 3-4-1995. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .