Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 491

2026 AHC 123135
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Sirajuddin Khan – Petitioner
Versus
Laxmichand – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2298 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Arvind Srivastava, Yawar Mukhtar.
For the Respondent : Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Arvind Srivastava, Yawar Mukhtar.
For the Respondent: Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan.

Mandatory statutory protections intended for private benefit are subject to waiver. A party who fully participates in proceedings on merits for a prolonged duration without asserting a known procedural defect is deemed to have acquiesced to the process, thereby losing the right to challenge maintainability at a late stage.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Premises release application - Mandatory requirement of six months’ prior notice - Doctrine of waiver - Procedural protection enacted for individual benefit - Non-compliance - Cumulative conduct of parties. (Paras 15, 21, 24, 34, 40)

(B) Doctrine of Waiver - Where a statutory requirement is enacted solely for the protection of an individual and not founded upon public policy, the benefit of such law can be, and is, subject to waiver by conduct or acquiescence of the party for whom it was intended. (Paras 23, 24, 38, 46)

(C) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Exercise of power under Article 227 is limited to matters exhibiting patent perversity or jurisdictional error - Review of concurrent findings of fact is not permissible in the absence of manifest illegality. (Paras 52, 53)

Facts of the case:
A landlord instituted proceedings for the release of a tenanted premises citing a bona fide requirement. The tenant contested the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the mandatory six-month notice period had not been observed by the landlord prior to filing. The tenant, however, participated in the litigation for over seven years, filing evidence and pleadings, and raised the objection regarding the premature nature of the application at a highly belated stage. The lower courts rejected the objection, holding that the tenant’s conduct amounted to a waiver of the statutory notice.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the requirement for prior notice is a procedural safeguard intended for the personal benefit of the tenant and is not a jurisdictional condition affecting the authority of the tribunal. Given the tenant’s prolonged participation and failure to press the objection at the threshold, the court inferred a conscious relinquishment of the right to object.

Issues: The main issues were whether the release application was premature due to non-compliance with the notice period and whether such a defect constitutes an incurable nullity or a waivable procedural irregularity based on the conduct of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A mandatory statutory requirement that is not based on public policy is capable of waiver. Where a party engages in the adjudicatory process for a substantial duration without raising a timely challenge to a procedural defect, they are precluded from subsequently asserting such an objection to invalidate the proceedings.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background of rent release litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. parties' contentions regarding notice requirement and bona fide need. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. statutory interpretation of section 21(1)(a) and waiver doctrine. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. judicial precedents on mandatory notice and waiver of rights. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. criteria for inferring waiver through prolonged participation in litigation. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. application of waiver principles to facts; concurrent findings of fact. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
7. formal dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 56)

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Bhavesh Singh, holding brief of Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Najibabad, District Bijnor in P.A. Case No. 1 of 2014, instituted under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, whereby the release application filed by the respondent-landlord in respect of a shop situated at Bazar Kalluganj, Kasba and Tehsil Najibabad, District Bijnor, was allowed and the requirement of the landlord was held to be bona fide. Challenge has also been made to the appellate judgment and order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-II, Bijnor in Rent Control Appeal No. 02 of 2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed and the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the questions of waiver of the requirement of notice under the proviso to Section 21(1)(a), bona fide requirement and comparative hardship were affirmed.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant of the shop in dispute at a monthly rent, allegedly inclusive of taxes, and that the tenancy commenced under the erstwhile owner of the premises, from whom the respondent-landlord subsequently purchased the property.

4. After purchase of the property, the respondent-landlord instituted release proceedings, registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 2014, before the Prescribed Authority, Najibabad, seeking release of the shop in dispute on the ground of bona fide requirement for establishment of his son in business. The petitioner entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegations made in the release application. The petitioner disputed the rate of rent, questioned the genuineness of the need set up by the respondent-landlord and further contended that the respondent possessed alternative accommodation. It was also pleaded that the shop in dispute was of small dimensions and was not suitable for the purpose for which release was sought.

5. An objection regarding maintainability of the release application was also raised by the petitioner on the ground that the requirement of six months’ prior notice, as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, had not been complied with before institution of the proceedings on 15.01.2014.

6. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Upon consideration of the material brought on record, the Prescribed Authority, by judgment and order dated 21.12.2022, allowed the release application holding the requirement of the respondent-landlord to be bona fide and further deciding the question of comparative hardship in favour of the landlord. The objection relating to non-compliance of six months’ notice was rejected.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 02 of 2023. During pendency of the appeal, an application for inspection was moved by the petition