Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19403 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3867 of 2022 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Sonkar Respondent :- Additional District Judge-Viii, Raebareli And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Bireshwar Nath,Amita Shukla,Ashish Chaturvedi,Ravindra Kumar Singh Raj Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 13.12.2021 passed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 as well as order dated 03.05.2022 whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of the premises in occupation of the petitioner on the ground of personal need for the petitioner's residence. The said claim was contested by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the respondent landlord had become the landlord of the petitioner after a compromise decree was passed on 10.07.2014 and in view of the bar prescribed under Section 21(1)(a), no proceedings could have been initiated within a period of three years of the respondent becoming the owner of the property. The said claim was rejected by the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority returned the findings after appreciation of evidence on the question of bonafide need as well as comparative hardship. An order of release was passed in favour of the respondent landlord. The said order was challenged in appeal which too was dismissed. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of proviso to Section 21(1)(a), no proceedings could have been initiated within a period of three years of the respondent becoming the owner of the property. No other point with regard to bonafide need and comparative hardship has been argued. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that the statement of counsel for the petitioner merits rejection on the ground that in terms of the proviso to Section 21(1)(a), the restriction is placed when the property is purchased whereas in the present case, the petitioner was always the co-owner and his rights were declared in a decree that was passed on 10.07.2014. 6. Considering the arguments as raised by the petitioner and the opposition of the respondent, prima-facie, the first argument raised by the petitioner merits rejection as the restriction placed in the proviso would not apply where the property is settled in a compromise and otherwise flows through succession or through a testament. The said is only applicable when the property is purchased for the first time. 7. In the present case, admittedly, the property was not purchased by the landlord, as such, proviso to Section 21(1)(a) would have no applicability in view of the finding of fact recorded with regard to bonafide need and comparative hardship and there being no challenge to the same, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some time to vacate the premises to which counsel for the respondent says that some reasonable time be granted. 9. In view thereof, the petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate the premises, subject to the petitioner executing an undertaking before the prescribed authority within 15 days from today to the effect that he shall handover the vacant and physical possession of the premises to the landlord and to no one else on or before 31.10.2025. 10. The petitioner shall also pay the unpaid rent within a period of one month from today which can be released in favour of the landlord by the prescribed authority. 11. In the event of failure to file an undertaking or payment of rent, as directed above, the respondent would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench