Judgment : R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. BY means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 5.11.1993, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for dismissing the release application on the ground that before filing the said application six months' notice was not given, has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. 2. IT appears that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short 'the Act', pleading that they were the landlords of the building in question. Respondent No. 2 claims his right on the basis of a document dated 28.8.86, which was alleged to be a will executed by Smt. Somwati Devi in his favour. Petitioner filed an application 29/C asserting that the document dated 28.8.86 was nothing, but is a sale deed executed by Smt. Somwati Devi in favour of respondent No. 2. Therefore, after execution of the said sale-deed, it was obligatory upon the respondent No. 2 to give six months' notice, which was not given before filing the release application. The release application was, therefore, not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. 3. ON the other hand, respondent No. 2 objected to the said application and asserted that the document dated 28.8.1986 was nothing, but a will/deed or at the best a gift deed and that it was, therefore, not necessary to give six months' notice before filing release application. 4. THE Prescribed Authority after taking the view that the document in question could not be said to be a sale-deed inasmuch as there was nothing on record to show that monetary consideration was paid for the property in dispute, which was necessary for execution of a sale-deed, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 5.11.1993. Petitioners, thereafter filed the present petition challenging the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document in question dated 28.8.86 was a sale-deed and not a gift deed and that the view taken to the contrary by the Prescribed Authority was apparently erroneous and illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has supported the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. 5. I have considered the arguments which by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A copy of the document in question is on the record. The said document, on the face of it is deceased as 'Tamleeknama". In the said document, it has been stated as under : In the concluding paragraph, it has further been stated as under : (sic) Word 'Tamleek" is a word of Urdu Language : In " " (FIROZUL-LUGHAAT), IX Edition the meanings of the word "(Tamleek)" and "(Tamleeknama)" have been given as under : (sic) meaning thereby "Tamleeknama" is a document by which the existing owner gives away the proprietary right (title) in respect of specified property to the other person ; it is a document conferring the title other than a will. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, sale' has been defined as under : "54. 'Sale defined.-'Sale' Is a transfer of ownership in exchange of the price paid or promised or part paid and part promised." 7. FROM the reading aforesaid of section, it is evident that no transaction of sale can be made without payment of price. "Price" means monetary consideration. Thus the payment of money consideration is necessary ingredient of sale. 8. SECTION 2 (10) of the Sales of Goods Act defines the 'price' as under: "2 (10). Price means money consideration in a sale of goods." The Apex Court of the country in Commissioner Income Tax v. M/s. Motor General Stores, AIR 1968 SC 200 , while considering the question, whether particular transaction was sale or exchange, was pleased to rule as under : "In absence of any definition in the Transfer of Property Act 'price' used in Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, must be construed in the sense in which it is used in Section 4 read with Section 2 (10) of Sales of Goods Act. Presence of money consideration is, therefore, as essential element in a transaction of sale, if the consideration is not money, but some other valuable consideration, it may be an exchange, but not a sale. Presence of money consideration is, therefore, as essential element in a transaction of sale, if the consideration is not money, but some other valuable consideration, it may be an exchange, but not a sale. Both in the Sales of Goods Act and Transfer of Property Act, sale is transfer of property for the goods of ownership in immovable property for a money consideration The difference between a sale and exchange is that in the former price is paid in money, whilst in the latter it is paid in the goods by way of its barter." 9. ADMITTEDLY, as it is also evident from the document in question that no money consideration was paid by Madan Lal, nor was promised to be paid for the property in dispute to Smt. Somwati Devi, therefore, the transaction dated 28.8.86 cannot be held or said to be a transaction of sale and 'Tamleeknama" cannot be construed to be a sale-deed. For the purposes of the present, it is not necessary for me to decide as to whether the transaction In question was a gift or said document is a gift deed, inasmuch as six months' notice before filing the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, is required only in cases of 'purchase' of a building. Provision sub-section (1) of Section 21 reads as under : "21. (1) (a)....................... (b)........................ Provided that where the building was in occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the commencement of this Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds mentioned in clause (a) unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant, not less than six months before such application and such notice may be given even before expiration of the aforesaid period of three years." 10. IN the new Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of English language. Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, word "purchase" means to acquire by paying money ; the act of purchasing. IN Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, word "purchase" means to acquire, to get in any way other than inheritance : to buy. In a transaction of sale, the person, who sells/transfers the property is called seller and person in whose favour it is sold/transferred is called purchaser. IN Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, word "purchase" means to acquire, to get in any way other than inheritance : to buy. In a transaction of sale, the person, who sells/transfers the property is called seller and person in whose favour it is sold/transferred is called purchaser. It is thus apparent that the aforesaid proviso applies only In the cases of sale and purchase. The transaction dated 28.8.96 not being a transaction of sale or purchase, six months' notice was not required to be served before filing the release application. The Prescribed Authority was thus right in holding that the service of six months' notice in the present case was not necessary. 11. LOOKING from the other angle, controversy regarding the nature of the transaction dated 28.8.86 was wholly irrelevant, inasmuch as admittedly Smt. Somwati Devi who executed the said document died in 1991, the building in question devolved upon Madan Lal, who is her son and heir of the deceased. Application for release was filed in the year 1982, much after the death of Smt. Somwati Devi. In the case of devolution, six months' notice is not necessary, therefore, the release application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was maintainable and six months was not required to be given before filing the said application. 12. IN view of the aforesaid discussions, petition has got no merit. It fails and is dismissed. It is, however, observed that since the proceedings, revisions and appeals under the Act, are required to be decided expeditiously, in the present case more than four years have already elapsed. It is, therefore, directed that the release application filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall be decided within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.