RAM AUTAR GUPTA Vs. HOSHIYAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Autar Gupta, the petitioner is the owner of house no. 1197 situated at E. L. Sharma Road, Meerut. He was himself in possession of a portion of this house. The remaining three portions had been let out to Gur Bux Singh, Lajja Ram and Hoshiyar Singh separately. The house originally belonged to one Chaman Lal Son of Ganga Ram. He executed a sale deed in respect of the said house in favour of Ram Autar Gupta in April, 1972. The sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Regis­trar, Meerut on April 19, 1972. It was registered and subsequently entered in the register on July 21, 1972. The petitioner filed three applications under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for release of the portions in possession of the three abovementioned tenants. The applica­tions were contested. By an order dated 28th May, 1974, the applications were allowed. Aggrieved the three tenants preferred three separate appeals before the District Judge, Meerut. These appeals were transferred to the First Addi­tional District Judge, Meerut who allowed the same by the impugned judgment dated 4-3-1977. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Autar Gupta, the landlord has filed these three writ petitions.

(2.) THE appeals were allowed on a preliminary objection raised by the tenants that as the applications filed under section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 had been preferred within a year from the date of sale deed obtained by the landlord, the said applications were not maintainable and were liable to be dis­missed on account of the prohibition contained in the first proviso to sub-section

(3.) THIS takes me to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21. It provides that where a landlord has acquired any building may transfer, no application shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in clause (a), unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such acquisition-and the land­lord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant. This clause will, however, apply to the purchase which is made after the commencement of this Act. Where a purchase of the property was made before the commencement of the Act, the proviso would not apply. In the instant case, the plea of the tenants was that as the transaction of sale was completed on 21-4-1972, the landlord could not file the application for release of the premises against them for three years, whereas the case of the landlord was that as the sale deed was executed on 19-4-72 and presented on that date before the sub-registrar for registration, the proviso did not apply to the present case.