HEERA LAL WATTAL Vs. JAGDISH NARAYAN SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Vimlesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondent-landlord.

(2.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25th January, 2005, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 2nd April, 2005, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. '8' and '9', respectively, to the writ petition.

(3.) From the facts, as stated in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent-landlord purchased the premises in question on 22nd July, 1998. On 4th September, 1998, the landlord served a notice to the petitioners-tenant, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition, wherein paragraphs 5 and 6 are relevant, which read thus :