Eviction under rent control: 'entertainment' means merits-stage adjudication, and tenant-protective notice defects can be waived.

Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act was construed so that the bar on "entertainment" of an eviction ground prevents adjudication on merits before three years from purchase, but does not bar filing or institution of the application. The six-month notice requirement was treated as a tenant-protective procedural safeguard capable of waiver, and the tenant was held to have waived the objection by not pursuing it and by contesting the matter on merits. A later acquisition of an undivided interest by the landlord's wife did not extinguish the landlord's bona fide need for the premises. The eviction decree was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 could be entertained before expiry of three years from the landlord's purchase of the building. (ii) Whether the application was barred because it was filed before six months had elapsed from service of notice, and whether that objection was waived. (iii) Whether the landlord's bona fide requirement ceased because of the subsequent acquisition of an undivided interest in the adjoining portion by the landlord's wife.

Issue (i): Whether an application for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 could be entertained before expiry of three years from the landlord's purchase of the building.

Analysis: The proviso bars entertainment of the ground under clause (a) until three years have elapsed from the date of purchase, but it does not bar the mere filing or institution of the application. The word "entertain" was construed to mean taking the ground up for adjudication on merits, not the ministerial act of filing or issuing summons. Since the merits were considered only after the three-year period had expired, the statutory bar was not attracted and the decree could not be treated as without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection failed and was rightly rejected in favour of the landlord.

Issue (ii): Whether the application was barred because it was filed before six months had elapsed from service of notice, and whether that objection was waived.

Analysis: The six-month notice requirement was mandatory, but it was held to be a protection intended for the tenant and therefore capable of waiver. The tenant raised the objection in the written statement but did not pursue it, joined issue on merits, and did not press the point in appeal until the writ stage. The landlord had meanwhile lost the chance to withdraw and refile, so the tenant was also precluded from reviving the objection at that late stage.

Conclusion: The premature filing objection was waived and could not defeat the landlord's application.

Issue (iii): Whether the landlord's bona fide requirement ceased because of the subsequent acquisition of an undivided interest in the adjoining portion by the landlord's wife.

Analysis: The subsequent event did not negate the landlord's need for the suit premises. The landlord remained without his own house in Lucknow and could not be compelled to live merely as a licensee in property partly owned by his wife and her brother. The reasoning based on the special explanation for retired soldiers was not upheld, but that did not affect the concurrent finding that the need survived.

Conclusion: The landlord's bona fide requirement continued and the subsequent event did not help the tenant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial issues and the eviction decree was maintained, with time granted for vacating the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar against "entertainment" of an eviction ground concerns adjudication on merits rather than filing, and a mandatory tenant-protective procedural requirement may be waived when it is intended for private protection and not public interest.

---