( 1 ) NOTICING that there were two conflicting decisions of this Court in Martin and Harris Ltd. v. Vlth Additional District Judge and Ors. [jt 1997 (10) SC 34 : 1998 (1) SCC 732] and Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi and ors. [jt 2001 (9) SC 84 : 2001 (8) SCC 540], reference was made to larger Bench.

( 2 ) THE case decided by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court in both the cases related to the scope of and ambit of proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the 'act' ). As directed by the hon'ble The Chief Justice of India, the matter has been placed before us.

( 3 ) IN Martin and Harris Limited's case (supra) it was held in para 13 as follows:

"it is not possible to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the provision containing the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act was for public benefit and could not be waived. It is, of course, true that it is enacted to cover a class of tenants who are sitting tenants and whose premises are subsequently purchased by landlords who seek to evict the sitting tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement as envisaged by Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, still the protection available to such tenants as found in the proviso would give the tenants concerned a locus poenitentiae to avail of it or not. It is easy to visualise that proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of the act would be between the landlord on the one hand and the tenant on the other. These proceedings are not of any public nature. Nor any public interest is involved therein. Only personal interest of landlord on the one hand and the tenant on the other hand get clashed and call for adjudication by the prescribed authority. The ground raised by the landlord under section 21 (1) (a) would be personal to him and similarly the defence taken by the tenant would also be personal to him. Six months' breathing time is given to the tenant after service of notice to enable him to put his house in order and to get the matter settled am icably or to get alternative accommodation if the tenant realises that the landlord has a good case. This type of protection to the tenant would naturally be personal to him and could be waived. In this connection we may profitably refer to a decision of this Court in the case of krishan Lal v. State of Jandk [1994 (4) SCC 422] wherein Hansaria, J. , speaking for a bench of two learned Judges has made the pertinent observations concerning the question of waiver of a mandatory provision providing for issuance of notice to the parties sought to be proceeded against by the person giving the notice, in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Report as under: ""16. . . . As to when violation of a mandatory provision makes an order a nullity has been the subject-matter of various decisions of this Court as well as of courts beyond the seven seas. This apart, there are views of reputed text writers. Let us start from our own one-time Highest Court, which used to be Privy Council. This question came up for examination by that body in vellayan Chettiar v. Govt. of the province of Madras [air 1947 pc 197] in which while accepting that Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory, which was the view taken in Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secy, of state for India- in-Council [1927 (54)IA 338] it was held that even if a notice under Section 80 be defective, the same would not per se render the suit requiring issuance of such a notice as a precondition for instituting the same as bad in the eye of law, as such a defect can be waived. This view was taken by pointing out that the protection provided by Section 80 is a protection given to the person concerned and if in a particular case that person does not require the protection he can lawfully waive his right. A distinction was made in this regard where the benefit conferred was to serve 'an important purpose', in which case there would not be waiver. 17. This point had