MAJID KHAN Vs. GOPAL KRISHNA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.05.2015, passed by the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge, (S.D.), Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 12 of 2012, whereby application moved by the tenant / defendant / petitioner herein to reject the application seeking release of the building for want of six months mandatory notice, under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that when landlord purchased property, in question, vide sale deed dated 13.07.2009, petitioner herein was already in possession as tenant in the tenanted property which is part of the property purchased by the landlord; landlord got issued one notice on 20.11.2009, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy of the tenant on expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice and asking the tenant to hand over vacant peaceful possession to the landlord after expiry of the statutory period of notice; landlord, thereafter, file one S.C.C. Suit for eviction of the tenant under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and has also filed present Rent Control Case No. 12 of 2012 in the Court of Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1973 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord; tenant has filed written statement to the release application before the Prescribed Authority, however, for the reasons best know to the tenant, tenant did not take plea about the maintainability of the application for want of mandatory notice as required under Section 21 (1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972; thereafter, landlord led his evidence and tenant has also led his evidence; when matter was listed before the Trial Court / Prescribed Authority for final arguments, tenant moved application seeking amendment in the written statement incorporating the plea that application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 is not maintainable for want of six months mandatory notice; amendment so sought was rejected by the Prescribed Authority, vide order dated 28.10.2014; order dated 28.10.2014 rejecting the amendment application was challenged before this Court in WPMS No. 2457 of 2014, however, same was permitted to be withdrawn by the tenant, vide order date 10.11.2014; thereafter, tenant/ petitioner herein moved an application on 11.12.2014 stating therein that landlord has not issued any mandatory notice of six months prior to the institution of the present application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, application moved under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the building is not maintainable and, consequently, same may be rejected; application so moved by the tenant petitioner herein came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2015; feeling aggrieved, tenant petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully perused the record.