TAHIR Vs. GOPAL KRISHAN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed by the tenant/defenant/petitioner, herein, assailing the order dated 27.09.2014 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, (SD), Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 25 of 2012 (Gopal Krishan Verma Vs. Tahir).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that tenant/petitioner, herein, was inducted as tenant in the tenanted portion (property, in dispute) by the then landlord/owner of the property; landlord/respondent, herein, purchased the property, in question, from the then owner vide sale deed dated 13.07.2009; landlord/respondent, herein moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 21.12.2012 seeking eviction of the tenant/petitioner on the ground of bona fide need; having received the notice of the suit (application) under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, tenant/petitioner, herein, moved preliminary objection on 05.02.2014 saying that application seeking eviction of the tenant/petitioner, herein, on the ground of bona fide need is not maintainable for want of six months notice, as mandated by first proviso of Section 21 (1) of the Act; learned Prescribed Authority, having placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar Hasan Khan Vs. Mohd. Shafi and others, 2001 8 SCC 540 was pleased to reject the application of the tenant/petitioner, herein, having observed that no six months' notice is required to be served on the tenant because release application is moved, after expiry of period of three years from the date of purchase of property, in question, by the landlord.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, tenant/petitioner, herein, has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.