The mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 and the limitations of issuing a Commission for collecting evidence were key legal principles established in the judgment.

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the following relief:

"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgments and orders dated 21.11.2017 (contained in Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Agra dismissing Misc. Appeal No. 126 of 2016, Smt. Meena Begum v. Naim Khan and 03.08.2016 (contained in Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 5, Agra allowing Release Application, registered as P.A. Case No. 64 of 2013, Naim Kha v. Meena Begum).

(b) issue such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed to be necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted.

(c) award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner."

3. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant has submitted as under:

(i) Notice under 1st Proviso to Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is mandatory, which was given and as such the application under Section 21 (1) (a) filed by the plaintiff- landlord/respondent No. 3 was maintainable.

(ii) The application for issue of Commission (Paper No. 69Ga) for inspection of Property No. 28/420 and 28/390, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra and property No. 18/86, Mantola, Agra, was arbitrarily and illegally rejected. The issue of commission for inspection of the aforesaid three houses was necessary for determination of the question of bona fide need of the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3. Therefore, both the impugned judgments are wholly erroneous and based on relevant evidences on record.

(iii) The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 has completely failed to establish his bona fide and genuine need. Therefore, in the absence of bona fide need, the impugned judgments directing for release under Section 21(1) (a) of the Act, is wholly arbitrary and illegal.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the leaned counsel for the defendant- petitioner/tenant and perused the record of this writ petition.

5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the House No. 28/480, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra in which one Sri Mohd. Jamil Uddin was a tenant of one shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. After his death, the defendant-petitioner being his wife succeeded the tenancy and became a tenant. The plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is engaged in the business of manufacture of Piston with his three sons namely, Sri Asif Khan, Kasif Khan and Sri Arif Khan, who are residing in the house situate at Mantola, Agra.

6. On the ground of bona fide need, the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3 filed a P.A. Case No. 64 of 2013, which has been decreed by the impugned judgment dated 3.8.2016.

7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the defendant-petitioner/tenant filed Misc. Appeal No. 126 of 2016, Smt. Meena Begum v. Sri Naeem Khan, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No. 12), Agra.

8. Now the defendant-petitioner/tenant has filed the preset writ petition challenging the aforesaid judgments.

9. It is undisputed that the plaintiff-landlord/respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the disputed house No. 28/480, Bindaganj, Chhatta Ward, Agra. In this house there are three shops. The plaintiff-landlord had let out one shop to Sri Mohd. Jameel Uddin and after his death, the tenancy was succeeded by his wife Smt. Meena Begum, who is the tenant-petitioner. Thus, the landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute.

10. The first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 2017 provides that where the building was in occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the comm