https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169241 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. en-us Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 23:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169241 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169241