( 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