The Court was shown the original registered sale deed.
It was also shown to Mr. S.S. Khanduja, learned Counsel for the appellant.
After the grant of leave the respondent landlady appeared and moved CMP 12737 of 1979 for revocation of leave on the ground that the accomodation from which tenant was sought to be evicted, was purchased by the landlady on July 28, 1974 and number on November 11, 1974, as companytended on behalf of the tenant, and the date of purchase being July 28, 1974, was admitted by the tenant in his written statement and yet suppressing this material fact leave was obtained from this Court.
Consistent with these findings the application for release of accomodation was granted in favour of the landlady.
To substantiate the submission the original sale deed was produced before the Court as also a true translation of it was annexed to the affidavit of one Hifajat AH along with the application for revocation of leave.
Negativing this companytention the High Court held that there was numberbar to the entertaining of application for release of accomodation within three years from the date of purchase of the house but the Court would be precluded from awarding possession at any time within three years and that by the time eviction was ordered in the instant case the period of three years had elapsed and the application at inception was maintainable.
It clearly shows that the sale deed was executed on July 27, 1974, and it was offered for registration and admitted for registration on July 28, 1974.
This becomes evident from the endorsement of the Sub Registrar on the sale deed itself.
Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 on the ground that the accomodation at her disposal was insufficient for her family and she needed additional accomodation.
Instead of spending time on the question whether leave granted should be revoked or number, the parties at the suggestion of the Court agreed that the appeal be heard on merits because the fate of the appeal would depend upon the narrow question as to the date on which the accomodation in dispute was purchased.
Before the High Court it was companytended that the land lady had purchased the house of which possession was sought, on November 11, 1974, and she companymenced the action for release of accomodation within three years of the date of purchase and as such the application was number maintainable in view of the first proviso to Sub section 1 of Section 21.
When the tenant moved the petition for special leave to appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution it was companytended that the landlady made the application for release of accomodation on September 10, 1977, and as the High Court has found that the house from which eviction of the tenant was sought was purchased by the landlady on November 11, 1974, it would be incontrovertible that the application for release of accomodation was made within three years.
15 and 16 of 1977 in the Course of the Prescribed Authority, Nainital, for eviction of two tenants, one being the present appellant and another, one Kishan Chand Pandey, under Section 21 1 a of the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting.
Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the tenant was dismissed.
Maqbool Begum initiated two separate actions being R.C.C. Nos.
After an unsuccessful appeal by the tenant, he moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Both the cases were companysolidated and the prescribed authority held that the land lady bonafide required the premises for her own use and her need was genuine and greater hardship would be caused to her if her application for release of accomodation was rejected.
A. Desai, J. A tenant under a decree of eviction is the appellant in this appeal by special leave.
Respondent Smt.
