MOHD. SIDDIQUE Vs. MOHD. NAFEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The short question involved in the present case is as to whether in the event of not taking an objection qua maintainability of release application under Sec. 21(1)(a) for the reasons that six months period had not expired after service of notice by the landlord who is admittedly subsequent purchaser of the rented property, the tenant would be taken to have waived his right of protection prescribed under first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972').

(3.) The proposition of law in respect of the above legal issue is well settled. In the case of Martin and Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional District Judge and others, (1998) 1 SCC 732; the Supreme Court had an occasion to interpret the provision and in paragraph 9 of the said judgment it has been held that application may not be entertained but would certainly be maintainable even if it has been pre-maturely filed i.e. before expiry of six months' notice. Paragraph 9 of the judgment runs as under: