- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Landlord respondent has filed a release application under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against tenant petitioner which is registered as U. P. U. B. Case No. 30 of 2002 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (S. D.), Court No. 1/prescribed Authority, Aligarh.
(2.) THE premises in dispute was purchased by landlord respondent on 13-2-1990. THE release application has been filed after 12 years of purchase. Tenant petitioner moved an application to the effect that as admittedly no notice of six months as required by first proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act was given to the tenant before filing the release application, hence, release application was not maintainable and it should be rejected forthwith. THE Prescribed Authority by order dated 16-4-2003 rejected the said application of the tenant holding that there was no requirement of the notice if release application was filed after about 12 years of the purchase. THE writ petition is directed against the said order. The Prescribed Authority placed reliance upon an authority of this Court in Anwar Hussain Khan v. District Judge, Shahjahanpur, 2000 (1) JCLR 710 (All) : 2000 (38) ALR 682, wherein it was held that if the release application was filed after 3 years of purchase no notice was necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several authorities including an authority of the Supreme Court in 1998 (1) ARC Page 109. In the said authority property was purchased on 30-6- 1985 notice was given on 20-9-1985 and release application was filed on 24-1-1986. The Supreme Court held that as release application had been filed before expiry of 3 years and notice was not of the six months hence, release application could not be entertained and decided before expiry of 3 years from the date of purchase. However it held that even in such situation Prescribed Authority could entertain and decide the release application after 3 years from the date of purchase even though it was filed within 3 years of purchase and that also without notice of six months. The Supreme Court drew a distinction between filing and entertaining.
(3.) IN the instant case as application itself was filed after about 12 years of purchase, hence, in view of the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court, six months notice was not at all necessary. IN any case the authority of this Court on which reliance was placed by the Prescribed Authority in the impugned order Anwar Hussain Khan v. District Judge, Shahjahanpur, 2000 (1) JCLR 710 (All) : 2000 (38) ALR 682, has been approved by the Supreme Court in the judgment in AIR 2001 SC 2984. Accordingly writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;