Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Udayan Nandan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal and Sri K.K. Nirkhi, learned Counsels for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of release passed by two Courts below on the ground that the release application was not entertainable in absence of notice as required under first proviso to sub -section (1) of Sec. 21. The premises was purchased by Sayed Mustafa Hussain in the year 1980 and a release application was filed for the residential accommodation under tenancy for the personal need of the family of the landlord. The petitioner who was sitting tenant at the time of purchase and as such the landlord was required to give six months notice before filing the release. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that since the premises was purchased 27 years prior to the filing of the release, the notice as mandated under first proviso to sub -section (1) of Sec. 21 lost its significance. The tenant was paying rent to the landlord for the last 27 years. In case the requirement of first proviso is pressed, it will make the entire Clause (a) of sub -section (1) unworkable as by his own conduct, the tenant had accepted the applicant as landlord who had stepped into the shoes of the original landlord. There was no requirement of notice in such a case. The release could have been filed by the original landlord without notice and after 27 years of purchase, the current landlord could very well maintain the release application without service of notice upon the tenant.
(2.) This apart, a notice has been served upon the mother of the petitioner tenant who was the original tenant and the said notice was proved before the Lower Appellate Court.
(3.) In view thereof, the release order passed by the Courts below need not be interfered.;