Allahabad High Court
Shanti Devi vs Govind And Another on 1 July, 2024
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106422
Court No. - 6
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 523 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shanti Devi
Respondent :- Govind And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar,Hari Bans Singh,Raj Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Tandon
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2018 passed by 17th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No.61 of 2015.
3. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises described in the application for release under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1972').
4. The release application was allowed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 27.07.2015. The respondent preferred statutory appeal under Section 22 of the Act of 1972 wherein specific ground was taken that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner by sale deed dated 25.11.1992 and before instituting an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972, six months mandatory notice required to be given to the tenant by the landlord as contemplated in the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) has not been given, therefore, the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 was not maintainable.
5. The appellate court in deciding the rent appeal recorded a finding that the respondent has stated in the objection that application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 was not maintainable for want of six months statutory notice as contemplated under first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972. The appellate court further recorded a finding that despite the fact that the respondent had taken the aforesaid plea, the prescribed authority did not return any finding on the said point, therefore, it proceeded to decide the said issue. The appellate court found that statutory notice of six months as provided in the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 was not given by the landlord. Accordingly, it found that since there was non compliance of six months statutory notice and controversy is concluded by judgment of this Court as well as Apex Court, therefore, the appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the release application.
6. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is manifest from the record that suit property was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed dated 25.11.1992 and the release application was instituted on 25.11.2008 after about 16 years from the date of purchase of the suit property, therefore, considering the fact that the release application has been filed after 16 years from the date of purchase of the said property, the statutory condition of six months notice is merely a formality and can at the most be irregularity which can be ignored. Accordingly, it is submitted that non compliance of six months statutory notice was only irregularity and cannot be a ground to dismiss the release application.
7. Be that as it may, the first proviso to the Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1970 can be filed only after three years from the date of purchase of property and by giving six months statutory notice which could be given even before expiry of three years period. The conditions stipulated in the proviso are mandatory which has been held by this Court as well as by Apex Court in various judgments, reference may be had to Martin & Harris Ltd. Vs. VIth Additional District Judge and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 732, Moin Uddin and Another Vs. Sayed Afaq Hussain Abdi and Others, 2016 (1) ARC 483 & Mohd. Ahmad (since deceased) and Others Vs. Noor Mohammad, 2023 (1) ARC 155.
8. Since the controversy in hand is concluded by various judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court referred above, therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.7.2024
R.S. Tiwari
