9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972; Interpretation of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21; Date of purchase of accommodation affecting application for release of accommodation. Summary: 1. The tenant appealed against a decree of eviction initiated by the landlady under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972. The High Court held that the application for release of accommodation was maintainable within three years of purchase. The tenant then sought special leave contending that the proviso to Section 21 prohibits entertaining such applications within three years of purchase. The Supreme Court granted leave to decide the substantial question of law on this issue. 2. After the grant of leave, the landlady contended that the accommodation was purchased earlier than claimed by the tenant, affecting the applicability of the proviso. The Court decided to hear the appeal on merits based on the date of purchase of the accommodation. 3. The original sale deed showed the accommodation was purchased on July 27, 1974, not in November as claimed. The Court clarified that the proviso prohibits entertaining an application within three years of purchase, not registration. As the application was made after three years from purchase, the proviso did not apply. The appeal was dismissed, and the tenant was given time until April 30, 1981, to vacate the premises. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
