POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri S.D. Kautilya, counsel for tenant/petitioner.
(2.) THE dispute relates to shop no. 155, situated in Mohalla Kanoongoyan, Meerut. Release application was preferred by landlady under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Release application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2006. Against the order of Prescribed Authority, appeal no. 164 of 2006 under Section 22 of the Act was filed. The Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Meerut, confirmed order of Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2009. Both the judgment and orders are impugned in the instant writ petition. First submission on behalf of petitioners is that father of tenant Pushp Raj, late Matarumal, was original tenant. After his death, petitioners inherited tenancy rights. The shop in question was purchased by present landlady on 4.5.2001. A notice was given in the year 2002 to late Matarumal, father of petitioner no.1 but before filing of release application, no six months notice as required in law was given to tenants, therefore, release application was not maintainable. Second submission is that findings on the question of 'bonafide need' and 'comparative hardship' are also perverse and erroneous, which are liable to be quashed.
(3.) I have perused the two judgments and gone through the entire record and also considered arguments of counsel for petitioners. So far first submission regarding six months notice is concerned, it is without any substance for the reason that Proviso to 21 (1) of the Act lays embargo on the subsequent landlady from institution of a release application on the ground of personal need under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act not before three years has elapsed since date of such purchase and landlady has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months.;