MISRI LAL Vs. 9TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by an order passed by the appellate authority in the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, negativing the claim of the tenant petitioner regarding the non maintainability of the release application filed by the respondent landlord for want of notice contemplated under the Ist proviso to section 21 (1) of the Act, the tenant petitioner has approached this Court seeking the quashing of the order passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) THE undisputed facts which emerge from the evidence and the materials on record are that the landlord had purchased the building of which the disputed premises forms part on 26-10-1976. A notice dated 1/4-10-1982 was issued by the landlord wherein the tenant petitioner was required to vacate the premises in question. THE aforesaid notice was duly served on the respondent. Initially a suit for ejectment of the tenant was filed in the Small Cause court on the basis of aforesaid notice, in which even though the tenant was found to be a defaulter, he was relieved of the decree of ejectment as he had satisfied the requirements envisaged under section 20 (4) of the said Act. It was thereafter that an application for release was filed by the petitioner under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the same accommodation and in support of its maintainability reliance was placed on the same notice on the basis where of the suit to which a reference has been made above had been filed. Initially the Prescribed authority dismissed the release application on the ground of its non- maintainability for want of notice. THE appellate authority however, has found the same notice to which a reference has been made above to be a valid notice and reversed the finding of the prescribed authority about the non maintainability of the release application for want of notice and has remanded the case for decision in accordance with the law.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents however, has urged that the notice in the present case, was a composite/combined notice and satisfied the requirements envisaged under the provisions contained under section 20 (2) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as the requirements contemplated under the 1st proviso to section 21 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act. It was further contended that the notice in question, could not, under the law be either treated as exhausted or non-est with the filing of the suit for ejectment find in the circumstances of the case could very well be availed of even for maintaining the release application.