PRAMOD KUMAR & ANOTHER Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 5th August, 2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the landlord under Section of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for release of the shop was allowed. The tenants have also sought the quashing of the judgment dated 10th October, 2011 passed by the Appellate Court by which the appeal filed by the tenants for setting aside the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

(2.) THE application under Section of the Act was filed by the landlord on 7th December, 2007. In the written statement filed on 10th December, 2007, the tenants raised a plea that mandatory requirement of service of six months notice contemplated under the proviso to Section of the Act had not been complied with. Thereafter, an affidavit was also filed by the tenants that the said notice has not been served by the landlord. An application was also filed on 16th July, 2010 that this issue may be decided as preliminary issue. The Prescribed Authority ordered that it shall be decided alongwith main application filed by the landlord under Section of the Act. The Prescribed Authority, while allowing the application filed by the landlord under Section of the Act, also examined this issue and held that the tenants had waived their right in coming to this conclusion had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Martin & Harris Ltd. Vs. VIth Additional District Judge and ORs. reported in : (1998) 1 SCC 732. The Appellate Court has also confirmed this finding.

(3.) PRIMA -facie, the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners has force. In Martin & Harris (supra), the Supreme Court observed that after the filing of written statement the tenant had kept quiet and had not even raised the issue in the appeal and nor had he pressed this issue during the course of hearing of the appeal.