G.C. Mathur, J.
1. This is an appeal by the District Magistrate, Meerut, against the judgment of a learned single Judge quashing an order of requisition dated July 13, 1973. By this order a residential house was sought to be requisitioned. The order recited that one Mahesh Prakash was living as a tenant in the house and that he had suitable alternative accommodation available to him. It further recited that the landlord, respondent in this appeal, was also in possession of spacious accommodation and his need for the requisitioned house did not exist. However, the order did not recite the actual purpose for which the house was being requisitioned. All it stated was that the house was urgently required for public purpose. The order was quashed by the learned single Judge on the ground that neither the order itself nor the counter affidavit showed what the actual purpose was.
2. Having heard learned standing counsel we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the order was illegal and is liable to be quashed. The order itself, as already stated, does not recite the actual purpose for which the house was requisitioned. The notice issued to the landlord and to the occupant before requisitioning the house states:
'and whereas the said tenant has got his own house in Mohanpuri Meerut which he has rented out at an abnormal rent to some person;
and whereas in view of Government policy such tenants should vacate the houses under their tenancies and should shift to their own house.'
It is for achieving this Government policy that the house was being requisitioned. It was not requisitioned for any actual public purpose that had arisen but in order to implement Government policy. A requisition of accommodation under the U.P. Accommodation Requisition, Act, 1947, is not permissible for implementing Government policy. Under this Act the requisition could only be made 'when property was needed for a specific public purpose.
3. The appeal is without merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.