- (1.)In this appeal, the appellant-tenant challenges the order of the high Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C. M. W. P. No. 1059 of 1999 dated 12/1/1999.
(2.)The question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court is right in holding that requirement of notice under the first proviso to clause (a) of sub-section 1 of section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) act, 1972, was satisfied.
(3.)The respondent is the landlady of premises no. 20/189 Chatai Mohal, Kanpur (for short 'the premises'). She purchased the said premises on 28/05/1985. Immediately thereafter she issued a notice to the appellant to vacate the premises. However, again on 1/06/1991, she issued the second notice. In May 1992, she filed eviction petition no. 8 of 1992 before the prescribed authority under section 21 (1) (a) of the said Act, for seeking eviction of the appellant from the premises for her bona fide requirement of personal occupation. The appellant contested the petition denying the bona fide requirement for the respondent and also service of notice under the first proviso to section 21 (1) of the said act. The prescribed authority dismissed the application of the respondent on the ground that the requirements of the proviso of the said section were not satisfied. However, on appeal by the respondent, the appellant authority under the said Act, reversed the order of the prescribed authority and ordered eviction of the appellant from the premises. The appellant challenged the validity of the said order dated 30/11/1998 in C. M. W. P. No. 1059 of 1999 in the High court of judicature at Allahabad. On 12/01/1999, the High Court dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with the order of the appellate authority. That order is assailed in this appeal by special leave.