Tenant notice under U.P. rent law need not be by registered post; surrounding evidence can prove service and hardship findings stand.

The proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act requires notice to the tenant, but it does not prescribe any fixed mode of service; notice may be oral or written, and a written notice need not be sent only by registered post. A photocopy of a certificate-of-posting receipt, supported by affidavit, is admissible under Section 34(1), and the surrounding circumstances may establish service, including the tenant's admission of tenancy and application to deposit rent. Concurrent factual findings on notice and comparative hardship are not to be disturbed without substantial basis, and the landlord is entitled to release of the shop where those findings stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the landlord had given the six months' notice required under the proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and whether the High Court was justified in disturbing the concurrent findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 21(1)(a) requires that notice be given to the tenant, but it does not prescribe any particular mode of service. A notice may therefore be oral or in writing, and if in writing, it need not necessarily be sent only by registered post. The landlord had filed the photocopy of the receipt of dispatch under certificate of posting along with an affidavit, which was admissible under Section 34(1) of the Act. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority relied not merely on the postal receipt, but also on surrounding circumstances, including the tenant's admission of tenancy and his application under Section 30(1) for deposit of rent, to record a factual finding that notice had been given. The concurrent finding on comparative hardship also remained undisturbed on any substantial basis.

Conclusion: The notice requirement stood satisfied, the concurrent findings of fact ought not to have been interfered with, and the landlord was entitled to release of the shop.

---