Undisputed facts of the case are that father of the appellant became a tenant of one Mushabbar Ali Khan in respect of the shop in the year 1330 on payment of rent at the rate of Rs.
xx xx xx While dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, the High Court observed Under First Proviso to Section 21 1 a of the Act, I hold numbersix months numberice is required in a case where three years have elapsed since the purchase of a building.
it has been companycurrently held by the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Court and the High Court that the respondent landlord required the shop for his personal bonafide requirement.
The said shop was purchased by one Mr. M.D. Malik who, by operation of law, became the landlord of the father of the appellant.
After dismissal of his appeal, he moved the High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.
The tenant started paying rent to the Regional Settlement Commissioner since the shop had vested in the custodian.
4/ per month.
Section 21 of the Act provides 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 bonafide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new companystruction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trusts b xx xx xx Provided that where the building was in occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the companymencement of this Act, numberapplication shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in clause a , unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a numberice in that behalf to the tenant number less than six months before such application, and such numberice may be given even before the expiration of the aforesaid period of three years.
The respondent purchased the shop on 2.8.1979 from Dr. M.D. Malik.
His appeal and the writ petition field against the aforesaid orders also stood rejected.
Learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has companytended that as the proceedings initiated by the respondent landlord were number maintainable under first proviso to sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the Prescribed Authority, First Appellate companyrt and the High Court companymitted mistake of law by directing the appellants eviction.
He filed an application for release of the shop under Section 21 1 a of the Act against the appellant tenant.
The erstwhile owner of the shop migrated to Pakistan leaving numberheirs.
As the appellant tenant had number paid the rent, the respondent landlord issued a numberice to him on 6.2.1995 calling upon for payment of arrears of rent.
The petition was resisted on various grounds including its number maintainability in the absence of six months numberice required as per first proviso of Section 21 of the Act.
Rejecting the prayer of the appellant, the Prescribed Authority directed his eviction.
Sethi, J. The appellant is the tenant of a shop regarding which order of eviction was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 16.12.1997.
The father of the appellant, the original tenant died somewhere in 1989.
