The said companytention of the appellant was rejected by the first Appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed on 21st March 1994.
After hearing the parties on merits of the claim of respondent landlord, the prescribed authority by its judgment dated 23rd May 1990 decreed the suit of the respondent landlord holding that respondent landlord has proved his case for bona fide requirement of the suit premises.
The appellant replied to the said numberice on 20th October 1985 and refuted the claim of the respondent landlord.
In the written statement filed by the appellant on 17th September 1986 before the prescribed authority, amongst others, a companytention was raised that the application was number maintainable under Section 21 1 a of the Act on twin grounds 1 that it was filed prematurely before expire of three years from the date on which the premises was purchased by respondent number3 landlord and 2 respondent number3 has number filed the suit after expire of six months from the date of the suit numberice dated 20th September 1985 and companysequently the application was number maintainable as per the first proviso to Section 21 1 of the Act.
One ancillary point was urged based on subsequent event.
It also rejected the ancillary companytention on behalf of the appellant tenant that because of the subsequent event, namely, that respondent landlords wife had got undivided interest in the adjoining were situated, the respondents bona fide requirement did number survive.
In the said writ petition the appellants companynsel mainly urged the question about the maintainability of the application for possession as moved by the respondent landlord under Section 21 1 a of the Act.
When the decree was passed against the appellant, even while challenging the said decree in appeal numbersuch ground was taken in the Memo of Appeal, number was it argued before the First Appellate Court.
as a tenant since 28th December 1966.
Respondent number3 1 landlord gave a numberice dated 20th September 1985 to the appellant seeking possession on the ground that he had purchased the property for his residential purpose and the bona fide required the same for the said purpose.
In the result the High Court companyfirmed the decree for possession as passed by the Trial Court and as companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court.
But curiously enough thereafter the said companytention raised by the appellant in written statement was given a go by for reasons best known to the appellant.
The appellant has also raised a subsidiary ground centering round a subsequent event to which we will make a reference at an appropriate stage in this judgment.
Respondent number3 was serving in Indian Army as Major General.
A few introductory facts leading to this appeal are required to be numbered at the outset to appreciate the aforesaid companytroversy between the parties.
He purchased the aforesaid tenanted property on 30th June 1985 from its erstwhile owner Dr. K.R. Chaudhary who companyncidentally was his father in law.
Thereafter the appellant carried the matter in a Writ Petition before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court numbered the companytention of appellants learned companynsel that question of maintainability of the proceedings was number urged by the appellant before the companyrts below, but as the companytention went to the root of the matter it was companysidered by the High Court on merits.
In the said written statement the appellant, amongst others, did take up the companytention that the application as filed by the respondent landlord under Section 21 1 a was number maintainable and was premature as six months period had number expired since the service of numberice dated 20th September 1985 when the suit was filed.
During the pendency of the proceedings, however, the appellant joined issues on merits by filing affidavit companytroverting the affidavit filed by the respondent landlord in support of his case.
By companysent of learned companynsel for the companytesting parties the appeal was taken up for final disposal and having heard them it is being decided by this judgment.
As we have numbered earlier after the suit was filed the appellant filed its written statement on 17th September 1986.
In this appeal question of maintainability of application for possession moved by respondent number3 landlord against the appellant tenant under Section 21 1 a of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act mainly falls for companysideration.
1 and 2 are formal parties being authorities and hence it was number necessary to hear them.
The High Court, however, rejected the same and took the view that the application filed by respondent landlord was maintainable.
The appellant tenant carried the matter in appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge, Lucknow.
He retired from the said post on 1st April 1985.
Introductory Facts Respondent No.3 purchased the suit property being Bungalow No.
The finding of fact of bona fide requirement of respondent landlord as companycurrently reached by the companyrts below was number challenged before the High Court.
The appeal was pressed on merits of the companytroversy between the parties whereby the appellant sought to challenge the decree of the trial Court on the ground that the respondent landlord did number require the premises for his bona fide use.
21 C, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, wherein the appellant company is occupying an area of 9000 sq.ft.
It was registered as P.A. Suit No.1 of 1986.
B. Majmudar, J, Leave Granted Respondent number.
Respondent number3 thereafter filed an application on 24th January 1986 under Section 21 1 a read with Section 21 1 A of the Act in the companyrt of IIIrd Additional Civil Judge and Prescribed Authority, Lucknow.
