Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proviso to Section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 barred entertainment of an application for release of accommodation within three years of the purchase of the building, and whether the application in the present case was within that prohibited period.
Analysis: The building was purchased on the date of execution of the registered sale deed, and not with reference to the later transcription or formal registration entry. Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act was applied to hold that the registered instrument operated from the time of execution, so the relevant date of purchase was the execution date. As the application for release was filed after more than three years from that date, the proviso was not attracted.
Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability failed, and the eviction decree was affirmed in favour of the landlady.
Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed on the only issue on which leave had been granted, and the tenant was entitled only to limited time to vacate in terms of the order.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the three-year bar under the proviso to Section 21(1), the relevant date is the date of purchase as determined by the operative date of the registered sale deed, not the later registration record date.