ANISA BEGUM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/landlord is assailing the order dated 08 February 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal No.178 of 2005 Kishan Chand Vs. Smt. Anisha Begum, rejecting the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application for release of the disputed premises before the Prescribed Authority being case No.44 of 1991. It was urged by the landlord that she purchased the property in question from the erstwhile owner, the respondent tenant had since purchased a part of house no. 179 Roshan Bagh, Allahabad, therefore, respondent/tenant would not require or need of the premises. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Aggrieved, respondent/tenant preferred an appeal contending that the house as alleged by the landlord, which though purchased by the respondent was subsequently sold, further no notice in terms of the provisions contained in proviso to Section 21 of Act No. 13 of 1972 was given to the petitioner before filing the release application, which being mandatory in nature would render the proceedings bad in law.

(3.) The appellate court, on the issue of notice was of the view that since the petition was filed 11 years after the date of purchase of the disputed premises, the notice as contemplated under section 21 was not required to be given to the respondent. Further, since the petitioner did not file any rejoinder/replication to controvert the assertion made in the objections/written statement, therefore, the appellate court was justified in holding the version of the respondent being correct. The appeal was allowed, the release application was rejected.