S.K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) This writ petition, at the instance of tenant, is directed against the order dated 22nd September, 1983, passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Jhansi, 'exercising powers as an Appellate Authority Under Sec. 22 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Appellate Authority has maintained the order of the Prescribed Authority purported to have been passed in proceedings Under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the Act.
(2.) This is not disputed that the property, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, was purchased by Smt. Tulsa Bai, the landlady, on 15th July, 1980, and an application Under Sec. 21(1)(a) was made by her on 23rd September, 1982. It is alleged that on 27th September, lv82, a compromise was arrived at between the Petitioner and the landlady in which it was stipulated that the Petitioner would vacate the accommodation in dispute within a period of one month. On 27th September, 1982, itself the Prescribed Authority, passed an order directing the eviction of the Petitioner on the basis of the said compromise. The Petitioner challenged the legality of the said order before the Appellate Authority and as already stated he failed to get any relief from that forum.
(3.) The first proviso to Sec. 21 lays down that where the building was in the occupation of the tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, on such purchase being made after the commencement of this Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in Clause (a), unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase, and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application, and such notice may be given even before the expiration of the period of three years. It is obvious that the order dated 27th September, 1982, was passed by the Prescribed Authority well within a period of three years. A perusal of the application of the landlady Under Sec. 21(1)(a) discloses that in it not a whisper was made that she had given any notice whatsoever to the Petitioner in terms of the provisions of the proviso. That apart, the language employed by the Legislature in the proviso is clear and explicit. In it there is a clear mandate that no application Under Sec. 21(1)(a) shall be entertained unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of the purchase. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to enter into the controversy as to what meaning should be ascribed to the phrase "entertain". In view of the decisions given by this Court it is amply clear that, at any rate, no decision accepting an application Under Sec. 21(1)(a) should be given by the Prescribed Authority before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of purchase. In any event, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 27th September, 1982, was without jurisdiction.;