1997 (12) TMI 639 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application u/s 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
2. Prematurity of the application due to non-expiry of six months from the date of notice.
3. Impact of subsequent events on the bona fide requirement of the landlord.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Application u/s 21(1)(a)
The court examined whether the application for possession under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was maintainable as it was filed before the expiry of three years from the date of purchase of the property. The proviso to Section 21(1) states that no application shall be entertained unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase. The court clarified that the term "entertain" means consideration on merits, not the filing or institution of the application. The application was taken up for consideration on merits after the expiry of three years, thus making the decree valid and not a nullity. Consequently, the first point was answered in the negative, favoring the respondent landlord.

Issue 2: Prematurity of the Application
The court addressed whether the application was filed prematurely as it was submitted before the expiry of six months from the date of notice. The court acknowledged that the application was indeed premature. However, it was found that the tenant had waived this contention by not pursuing it during the trial or in the appeal. The court emphasized that the provision for six months' notice is for the tenant's protection and can be waived. The tenant's conduct showed a waiver of this protection, leading to the conclusion that the second point was also answered in the negative, favoring the respondent landlord.

Issue 3: Impact of Subsequent Events
The court considered whether the bona fide requirement of the landlord was affected by the subsequent event of the landlord's wife acquiring an undivided interest in the adjoining property. The court held that this subsequent event did not affect the landlord's bona fide requirement as he could not be compelled to stay as a licensee in a property jointly owned by his wife and her brother. The third point was thus answered in the negative, favoring the respondent landlord.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted time to vacate the premises until 31st December 1998, provided an undertaking was filed within four weeks. No order as to costs was made.