- (1.) I fully agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders i.e. order dated 3.10.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority/ J.S.C.C., Bareilly in P.A. Case No. 10 of 2011, Krishna Gopal v. Rajendra Kumar and order dated 21.4.2012 passed by lower appellate Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Bareilly are quite illegal. Landlord respondent purchased the property in dispute through sale deed dated 11.5.2009 and filed release application under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on 20.4.2011 when even three years had not expired. Under first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act the restriction is that for three years after purchase release application cannot be filed. Through order dated 3.10.2011, Prescribed Authority held that the release application was maintainable. Against order dated 3.10.2011, tenant petitioner filed appeal (Rent Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2011). A.D.J. Court No. 12, Bareilly dismissed the appeal through order dated 21.4.2012. The said orders have been challenged through this writ petition. Even on 21.4.2012 three years had not expired hence the said order was also wrong. While deciding the objection of the petitioner the three years' period had not expired hence release application should have been dismissed. In this regard the Courts below referred to the authorities of Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge and others, 1998 AIR(SC) 492 and Nirbhai Kumar v. Maya Devi, 2009 4 SCJ 351.
(2.) The Courts below completely misinterpreted both the authorities of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court has held that if release application is filed before expiry of three years then it may be taken to have rightly been filed after three years if it is pending till then. Supreme Court has not held that even if release application is filed within three years it shall be considered before the expiry of three years' period.
(3.) However the fact is that now three years' period has expired. Apart from the above two authorities reference may also be made to Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India, 2005 AIR(SC) 1891 holding that if a suit is filed premature (in that case before the expiry of period of notice suit had been filed), however it becomes mature during its pendency then the same will have to be decided on merit. The said authority has been followed in M/s Pushpa Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. M/s. Gangotri Sahkari Avas S. Ltd. and others, 2012 3 JT 563 in the case of execution application also. In that case execution application had been filed before time however during pendency the said execution application became mature. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware that what has happened in the Release Application before the Prescribed Authority since 20.4.2011 when the appeal was dismissed till date. Accordingly, it is directed that whatever objection, documents or affidavits apart from release application were filed before the Prescribed Authority prior to 11.5.2012 shall be treated not to have been filed and the party which filed the said documents etc. shall be required to file similar/ same documents (objection, application, document or affidavit) apart from Release Application again and only then they must be considered. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.;