K.N. Singh, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-2-1976 declaring vacancy under Section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The Petitioner has been residing as a tenant in premises No. 98-0, Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar on the ground floor. Gyani Ram Gupta is the landlord of the premises. The landlord made an application before the Prescribed Authority for declaring vacancy in respect of the portion of the building which has been under the tenancy of the Petitioner under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act. The landlord alleged that the Petitioner tenant had constructed his own house No. 19 Virendra Varma Park, Muzaffarnagar, which was complete in all respects. Since the Petitioner had built a house, vacancy had arisen in the premises under Section 12 of the Act. The Petitioner contested the landlords application on two grounds. Firstly, he asserted that house No. 19, Virendra Varma Park had not been built by him and that house was not situate within the municipal limits of Muzaffarnagar and as such the provisions of Section 12 of the Act were not applicable. The Prescribed Authority held that the Petitioner had constructed house No. 19, Virendra Varma Park, Muzaffarnagar. On the second question the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that Petitioners house was situate at a distance of 3 kms. beyond the municipal limits. On these findings, the Prescribed Authority declared vacancy in the premises under Section 12(4) of the Act.

3. Section 12 lays down that a landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if-

(a) he has substantially removed his effects therefrom, or

(b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or

(c) in the case of residential building, he as well as members of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, elsewhere.

4. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 creates a legal fiction. It lays down that if a tenant of a residential building or any member of his family belongs or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated a residential building in the same city, municipality; notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, in that event the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy. The Legislature intended that tenants should not take undue advantage of the protection under the Act and, therefore, it provided that if a tenant or any member of his family constructed any building or acquired possession of a building in the same city, municipality or notified area then the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy. It is pertinent to note that both the buildings, namely, the building under the tenancy as well as the building which may have been acquired or built, must be situated in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. If a tenant acquires a building outside the municipal limits, Section 12(3) would not apply and no occasion would arise for the application of the deeming provision contained in the section. Many a times a tenant originally belonging to a rural area resides in a tenanted building in urban area, thus he may be having two buildings at his disposal. The Legislature took care to protect the interest of such a tenant and for that purpose it laid emphasis that building which may be acquired or constructed by a tenant must be situate in the same city, municipality or town area.

5. Section 1 of the Act makes the Act applicable to every city as defined under the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam and every municipality as defined in the U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 and every ([notified area constituted under the Municipalities Act and to every town area. The Act does not apply to any area outside the city, municipality, notified area or town area. No doubt, under the provisions of Sub-section (1), the State Government is authorised to extend the provisions of the Act to any other local area by notification in the Gazette but unless such a notification is issued, the Act would not apply to any area lying outside the municipal limits.

6. On the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, it is clear that the house which the tenant had built is situate outside the municipal limits of Muzaffarnagar. Consequently the provisions of the Act do not apply. Further the requirements of Section 12(3) of the Act are not fulfilled as the building under Petitioners tenancy as well as the building which has been constructed are not situate in the same city or municipality. The Prescribed Authority exceeded his jurisdiction in declaring a vacancy under Section 12(4) of the Act.

7. In the result we allow the petition and quash the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 20-2-1976. The Petitioner is entitled to his cost.