LexMARTIN AND HARRIS LTD. versus VLTH ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c MARTIN AND HARRIS LTD. v. Vlth ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE AND ORS. DECEMBER 11, 1997 (S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.1.J Rent Control and Eviction : U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Section 2J(a) first proviscr-First proviso to S.2J(a) required that no application for eviction by purchawc/andlord of the building Oil t/;e ground of bona fide requirement shall be "ente1tained" unless a pe1iod of three years had elapsed since the date of purchase when the building had a sitting tenant D at the time of purchase-Application filed before expiiy of three years' pe1iod-Maintai11ability of-Held : The word "Enteltainment" in the context means consideration by the presc1ibed authmity of the melits of the ground of eviction-Therefore, such application not barred by law and main- tainable-But such application can only be ente1tained when by the time it is taken up by the presuibed authmity for consideration on nwits, at least E minimum three years' pe1iod has elapsed since the date of purchase of the premises by the landlord. F First Proviso to S.2J(a)-Required landlord to give a notice to the tenant not less than six months before filing his appli::ation for evic- tion:-Landlord filed application for eviction before expi1y of six months' notice peliod--Tenant prefe1red not to pursue the contention that the eviction application did not show completed cause of action due to non-expi1y of six months' notice pe1iod--Bar unde1~Held: Provision mandator:r-It gives the tenant concemed a protection by way of locus penintentiae which he may avail or not-Such breathi11g time given to the tenant is personal in nature G and no public i11teresris involved therein and such beneficial provision can be waived by the tenant himself-Such waiver can be infe1red by the conduct of the tenant-By not pursuing the contention that the eviction application was premature the tenant had caused the landlord to ilret1ievably change his position by not availing the oppolt1mity to withdraw the premature application and to file a fresh application after expiiy of six months' pe1iod--Hence, H tenant is estopped from subsequently taking up the contention of premature 380 MARTIN AND HARRIS LTD. v. VIth ADDL.DISTT. JUDGE 381 application for want of non-compliance with the mandat01y provision-Code A of Civil Procedure, 1908, 0.7 R. ll(a) & (d) and 0.23 R.1(3) and S.115. Bona fide requirement-Subsequent event-Effect of-Landlord filed eviction application on ground of bona fide requirement-Subsequently, landlord's wife got undivided interest along with her brother in the adjoining pmt of the buildillg-lalldlord, a retired Anny Major General, had no other prope1ty in the city-Held: Such subsequent event can have no effect on the nwits of the landlord's claim that he was a retired Anny Major General having no other propoty i11 the city and who cannot be compelled to stay as a licensee of his wife in a prope1ty which did not even exclusively belong to B her but was jointly owned by her and her brother. C Words a11d Phrases: "E11te1tain''-Meaning of-In the colltext of S.21( I) fiJ~·t proviso of the U.P. Urban Buildi11gs (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972. Respondent No. 3 landlord, a retired Army Major General having no other property in the city, gave a notice dated 20.9.1985 to the appel- lant-tenant seeking possession on the ground that he had purchased the property 01130.6.1985 for his residential purpose and he boll a fide required D· the same for the said purpose. The appellant refuted the claim of the respondent-landlord. Respondent-Landlord thereafter filed an application E on 24.1.1986 under Section 21(1-A) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regula- tion, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972. In the written statement filed by the appellant a contention was raised that the application was not main- tainable under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act on twin grounds - (1) that it was filed prematurely before expiry of three years from the date on which the F premises was purchased by respondent No. 3 landlord and (2) respondent No. 3 had not filed the suit after expiry of six months from the date of the suit notice dated 20.9.1985 and consequently the application was not maintainable as per the first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act. However, at subsequent stages of the trial the appellant did not press the aforesaid G contentions into service and on th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.