Purposive reading of rent-control notice proviso upheld eviction where bona fide need was concurrently found.

SC construed the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act purposively and harmoniously, holding that the six months' notice requirement did not survive after the statutory three-year period from the landlord's purchase had expired. It also upheld eviction because the landlord had pleaded and proved bona fide need, and that concurrent finding was free from legal or factual infirmity. The proviso was therefore not breached, and the eviction order remained sustainable on the ground of genuine requirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 required six months' notice even where three years had already elapsed after the landlord's purchase of the building; (ii) Whether the order of eviction could be sustained on the ground of the landlord's bona fide requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 required six months' notice even where three years had already elapsed after the landlord's purchase of the building.

Analysis: The proviso was construed in the light of the object of the rent control legislation and the need to avoid a construction that would defeat the protection intended for tenants while also preventing the proviso from becoming a permanent restraint on the purchaser's rights. The three-year bar and the six months' notice were read harmoniously, with the notice serving the purpose of informing the tenant and enabling alternative arrangements. On that construction, once the statutory period had elapsed, the proceeding was not defeated for want of a fresh six months' notice.

Conclusion: The six months' notice was not required after the expiry of three years from the purchase.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of eviction could be sustained on the ground of the landlord's bona fide requirement.

Analysis: The landlord had pleaded and proved that the shop was genuinely required for occupation, and that finding had been concurrently affirmed by the authorities below. No legal or factual infirmity was shown to displace that concurrent finding.

Conclusion: The eviction order was sustainable on the ground of bona fide requirement.

Final Conclusion: The statutory proviso was not breached on the facts, and the concurrent finding of bona fide need justified eviction; the appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A rent-control proviso imposing a pre-notice restraint must be read purposively and harmoniously with the statutory object, so that the notice requirement does not survive beyond the period for which the legislature intended the embargo to operate.

---