A tenant waives the right to contest the maintainability of a release application if objections are not raised timely, and the landlord's need for the property is determined to be bona fide.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Nawal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishabh Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises challenge to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority directing for release of the demised premises in favour of the landlord-respondent and also the order passed in appeal affirming the order passed by the said authority. Admittedly, release application has been filed to set up a plea for need of the son of the landlord-respondent which came to be contested basically on the point that there was no bona fide need so as to warrant release of the premises.

3. The Prescribed Authority has ordered for release of the demised premises and, therefore, the landlord-respondent challenged the judgment in appeal taking an additional ground that the release application itself was not maintainable as the mandatory requirement of 6 months' notice to maintain a release application as contemplated under Section 21(1)(a) was not fulfilled and, therefore, release application was hit by the first proviso to Section 21(1) of Act No.13 of 1972.

4. Here before this Court also the same point is pressed with an additional plea that the findings returned by the Prescribed Authority on the point of bona fide need was not justified and rather perverse in view of the documents as brought on record which had gone unnoticed by the Prescribed Authority.

5. In support of his legal argument as to entertainability/maintainability of release application by the Prescribed Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manju Sharma and others v. Sudha Sharma and others , 2019 (8) ADJ 818 and also the certain observations made in the judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional District Judge and others, (1998) 1 SCC 732.

6. In support of his second submission as to the findings returned upon the point of bona fide need, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the landlord-respondent in O.S. No.684 of 2013 instituted by the petitioner against the landlord seeking an injunction from any unlawful dispossession from the tenanted premises. He has also pleaded that looking to the plaint allegations more especially paragraph no.5 thereof, there was no bona fide need.

7. Countering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the first plea, Sri Rishabh Agrawal, learned Advocate has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Martin & Harris Ltd. (supra) as well as the subsequent judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Zila Congress Committee and another v. Girish Kumar Juneja, 2019 SCC Online All 5169 and submitted that mandatory requirement of 6 months' notice though is there to maintain release application before the Prescribed Authority but to that effect objection has to be taken specifically by the defendant-tenant in the very beginning failing which it would be taken that he has waived his right to raise objections to join issues on merits with the plaintiff by filing his objections.

8. It is submitted that in the written objections that had been filed by tenant-petitioner to the release application, there was no such objection taken. Insofar as the case of Manju Sharma (supra) is concerned, it is argued by Sri Rishabh Agrawal that, that was a case more on the point of requirement of 6 months' notice which the Prescrib