Judgement Reserved on: 28.10.2025 Judgement Delivered on: 16.12.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022 Smt. Kamla Devi & others ......Petitioners Versus Shri Jagdish Kumar …..Respondent Presence Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Petitioners.

Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The Petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment dated 07.06.2019 delivered by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 36 of 2014 and the judgment dated 09.11.2021 rendered by the learned District Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Appeal No. 38 of 2019. By both these concurrent judgments, the release application filed by the Respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed, and the Petitioners, as tenants, have been directed to vacate the premises. The Petitioners seek interference with both findings and pray that this Court quash the impugned orders.

2. The dispute pertains to a portion of the property known as “Ganges View” situated in Landour Cantt., Mussoorie. The premises had been let out several decades earlier to the husband of Petitioner No. 1. Upon his demise, the tenancy devolved upon the Petitioners. The Respondent purchased the property in the year 2000 and became the landlord. As per the record, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute.

3. The parties have had an extended history of rent-related communications, including certain notices exchanged in the years 2008 and 2014, which the Petitioners rely upon in support of their submissions regarding waiver and non-compliance with statutory provisions.

4. The Respondent approached the Prescribed Authority in 2014 by filing a release application, asserting that the accommodation in his possession was insufficient and that he bona fide required the tenanted portion of the premises for his residential use.

5. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the matter in detail, rejected the objections raised by the Petitioners. The Authority found that the Respondent had purchased the property in the year 2000 and that the release application was filed in 2014, well beyond the three-year embargo imposed by the first proviso to Section 21(1). It held that once the statutory period has expired, the requirement of serving a six-month notice does not survive.

6. The Prescribed Authority also recorded that the accommodation available with the Respondent is limited and insufficient and that the Respondent’s requirement is genuine. The Authority was not persuaded by the Petitioners’ claim of hardship and concluded that the hardship to the Respondent is greater.

7. On appeal, the District Judge, Dehradun, undertook a re-appraisal of the entire material. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the Prescribed Authority on every aspect. The Appellate Court held that the release application was maintainable in law. It also held that the Respondent’s need is bona fide, noting that he is of advanced age, has insufficient space in his possession, and that the Petitioners’ assertions of hardship are unsupported by material evidence. The Appellate Court observed that the Petitioners’ plea regarding the mandatory notice under the proviso was based on a misreading of the statutory scheme.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds taken in the writ petition, has submitted that both courts below failed to appreciate the import of the first proviso to Section 21(1), which mandates that a subsequent purchaser cannot file a release application before the expiry of three years of purchase and, even thereafter, cannot initiate such proceedings without serving a prior six-month notice upon the sitting tenant.

10. It was argued that the absence of such notice constitutes a jurisdictiona