- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. This is tenant's writ petition for quashing the order dated 17-11-97 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 11-12-1996 has been reversed.
(2.) THE dispute relates to a portion of house No. C/123/325-A situate in Mohalla Purdilpur, Gorakhpur City which is admit tedly governed by the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (briefly, the Act ). It is also not disputed that the portion in the tenancy of the petitioner was purchased by one Ramesh Chandra Srivastava from the then landlady Smt. Sarlet Chose and thereafter the said Ramesh Chandra Srivastava sold the same to respondent No. 2 by means of a registered sale-deed dated 18-4-92. THE landlady respondent No. 2 moved an application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act on 25-4-95 for the release of the tenanted accommodation for her personal requirement after serving a notice dated 11-11- 92 on the petitioner. In the release application the landlady claimed that in order to cater the need of her family members she required addition al accommodation as her family was facing much difficulty and inconvenience on ac count of acute shortage of space for their comfortable living. THE tenant petitioner besides contesting the said application on merits also raised a legal objection that the release application of the landlady was not maintainable under the first proviso to Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act. It was pleaded that no notice as contemplated under the said proviso was served upon the tenant and the application was premature having been filed before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of purchase of the property in question by the landlady. With regard to the claim made by the landlady it was pleaded by the tenant that the landlady has with her sufficient accom modation and it was further pleaded that the two 'devars' of the landlady as also father-in-law and mother-in-law were not the members of the family of the landlady nor they were residing with the landlady in the accommodation already in her occupa tion. THEy were living separately. THE Prescribed Authority rejected the landlady's application holding that the same was not legally maintainable on ac count of the fact that the notice sent by the landlady was not in conformity to the re quirements of the proviso to Section 21 (1) (a ). On the question of bonafide need of the landlady, the Prescribed Authority reached to the conclusion that the accom modation already available with the landlady was sufficient to meet out the requirement of the members of her family and it was neither moral nor a social obligation of her to keep her father-in-law and mother-in-law and her Devars with her. THE Prescribed Authority further found that even after taking the need of the aforesaid persons into consideration, the landlady still has with her sufficient ac commodation and there was no require ment for any additional space. The landlady aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority filed ap peal under Section 22 of the Act which has been allowed by the impugned judgment by respondent No. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that in the present case notice which is alleged to have been served upon the tenant petitioner by the landlady after purchasing the house in question was not in accordance with the proviso to Sec tion 21 (l) (a) of the Act inasmuch as it was simply a notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and it nowhere disclosed that release application would be filed against the petitioner by the landlady on the expiry of a period of six months and, therefore, it was rightly held by the Prescribed Authority that the application for release was not legally maintainable and the view taken by the appellate authority contrary to it is illegal. Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent landlady supported the view of the appel late authority by contending that the notice as contemplated under the proviso to Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act was duly served upon the tenant in the present case. Both the Counsel placed before the Court a number of judicial authorities of this Court as well as of the Apex Court in support of their respective contentions. A perusal of the proviso to Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act would show that it applies only to a case where the tenant is found to be in occupation of the tenanted building before its purchase by the landlord and such purchase having been made after the commencement of the Act. In such cases the landlord cannot get the tenanted accommodation released before the expiry of period of three years since the date of purchase of building as is provided in the first clause of the proviso. The latter part of the proviso further requires the landlord to give a notice in that behalf to the tenant atleast six months before an application under clause (a) is filed.;