ANWAR HASAN KHAN Vs. MOHAMMAD SHAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the tenant of a shop regarding which order of eviction was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 16-12-1997. After dismissal of his appeal, he moved the High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. It has been concurrently held by the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Court and the High Court that the respondent-landlord required the shop for his personal bona fide requirement.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that as the proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord were not maintainable under first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Prescribed Authority, First Appellate Court and the High Court committed a mistake of law by directing the appellant's eviction. It is contended that as no notice in terms of the aforesaid proviso was served upon the appellant-tenant, no cause of action accrued to the respondent-landlord for seeking his eviction under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Undisputed facts of the case are that father of the appellant became a tenant of one Mushabbar Ali Khan in respect of the shop in the year 1930 on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month. The erstwhile owner of the shop migrated to Pakistan leaving no heirs. The tenant started paying rent to the Regional Settlement Commissioner since the shop had vested in the custodian. The said shop was purchased by one Mr. M. D. Malik who, by operation of law, became the landlord of the father of the appellant. The respondent purchased the shop on 2-8-1979 from Dr. M.D. Malik. The father of the appellant, the original tenant died somewhere in 1989. As the appellant-tenant had not paid the rent, the respondent-landlord issued a notice to him on 6-2-1995 calling upon for payment of arrears of rent. He filed an application for release of the shop under S. 21(1)(a) of the Act against the appellant-tenant. The petition was resisted on various grounds including its non-maintainability in the absence of six months notice required as per first proviso of S. 21 of the Act.