KALPANA GULATIS Vs. VIIITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the tenant's writ petition against the order dated 14.6.1995, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, passed by the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad, and the order dated 9.9.1997, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed by the VIIIth A.D.J., Allahabad, In proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1971 (the Act for short). FACTS

(2.) One Smt. Husna Kunwar was the owner of the premises in dispute, namely, shop situated at 64/57, Meerganj, Allahabad. She sold it to respondent Nos. 3. Sri Hari Om Varshney and 4, Sri Prahlad Varshney on 7.8.1984. They are now it's landlord (now referred to as the landlord). The petitioners are the tenants of the shop at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. The landlord has filed an application on 23.9.1991 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground of his personal need of his sons. This application was admittedly after 3 years from the date of purchase of the shop, but in the application it was not mentioned that landlord had given six months notice as required in provision to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The petitioners have filed an objection. They denied the allegations in the application. But did not take the specific plea in their objection that six-month's notice as required by the law has not been given ; though there is a general plea that application is not maintainable in view of proviso to Section 21 of the Act.

(3.) The prescribed authority after considering the evidence on the record has held that the need of the landlord is bona fide and greater hardship will occasion to them in case the application is rejected. He makes a passing reference about the question regarding notice as contemplated under the proviso. The tenants filed an appeal. The appellate court upheld the findings of the prescribed authority regarding bona fide need and greater hardship. There is no discussion about the notice. The tenants appeal for their eviction was dismissed but they were awarded more compensation. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION