JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – This petition by the tenant has been filed challenging the order dated 11.04.2014, passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Ist Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow whereby the application/petition, under Section 21(1(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for release of the premises in question filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been allowed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act against the judgment dated 11.04.2014, passed by the Prescribed Authority has also been dismissed by the learned appellate court by means of order dated 15.04.2015. This order dated 15.04.2015 has also been assailed by the petitioner in these proceedings. 2. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by the Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and perused the lower court record. 3. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act for release of the premises in question, namely, House No. 41/210, Ram Ratan Bajpai Marg, Narhi, Hazratganj, Lucknow. This premises was purchased by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 from its erstwhile owner, Ram Chandra Gupta through a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2006. In the petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, it was averred that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the co-owners and landlords and the petitioner was informed that premises has been purchased through registered sale deed dated 01.11.2006 through letter dated 01.05.2007, which was sent through registered post on 04.05.2007 and was received by the petitioner on 16.05.2007. After the said information, the petitioner paid rent for the period from 01.11.2006 to 30.11.2007 through money order to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 which was received on 16.10.2007 and thus, he established a relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 4. It was further averred by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that a notice as per requirement of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was sent, however, since even after receipt of the notice, the possession was not delivered, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed the application/petition. 3 and 4. 4. It was further averred by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that a notice as per requirement of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was sent, however, since even after receipt of the notice, the possession was not delivered, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed the application/petition. Further averments made in the petition was that petitioner has purchased and obtained possession of residential flat bearing No. 506-A, 5th Floor, Pashupati Apartment, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Narhi, Lucknow where he is residing with his family members. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 further set up a case that objection to the application/petition filed by them under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act cannot be entertained in view of the provisions contained in the explanation appended to the proviso as the petitioner has already acquired the residential building in the city of Lucknow. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 further pleaded that the premises in question is bona fide required by them for the reason that presently they are residing in House No. 41/208, Ram Ratan Bajpai Marg, Narhi, Lucknow, which is very small and there is space crunch for their business and residence. It was also averred that the relationships between the mother of respondent No.3 and his wife are constrained because of which he cannot live with his parents. It was also stated that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are practicing in taxation law for which they required separate chamber. In addition, it was also stated that respondent No. 3 is a Chartered Accountant who has with him his wife and four years son and further that respondent No. 4 is due to appear in the final examination of Chartered Accountancy in the month of May, 2008 and hence, he also needs the space to establish his profession. In sum and substance, it was stated that requirement of premises by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are bona fide and genuine. 5. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 further stated in the application for release that the petitioner is a moneyed person and his son, Mayank Mishra has purchased a Flat No. 506-A 5th Floor, Pashupati Apartment, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Narhi, Lucknow and as such in case the premises in question is released, the petitioner will not suffer any hardship. 6. The claim put forth by the respondent Nos. 6. The claim put forth by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by filing application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement stating therein inter alia that he had received an information of the premises having been purchased by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, however, no notice was ever served on him as required under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The averments made in the application were denied and it was further stated that elder son of the petitioner, Mayank Mishra has purchased Flat No. 506-A, 5th Floor, Pashupati Apartment, Narhi, Lucknow but he is living separately on account of constrained relationship with his son. It was also stated that second son of the petitioner is studying in USA and further that since three years time had not elapsed from the date of purchase of premises, as such the application moved by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable for the reason that the first proviso appended to the said provision is mandatory in nature. It was also stated that father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has purchased a house in Ram Ratan Bajpai Road, Narhi in the name of his wife and has constructed a three storeyed building in an area of 1120 sq. ft. which can be used by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for their profession. It was also stated in the written statement that there is another flat, namely, Flat No. 104, Halwasia Market, Hazratganj, Lucknow which has four rooms, a kitchen, a bathroom and a big hall. 7. On the basis of pleadings, three points for determination were ascertained by the learned Prescribed Authority, namely, (1) as to whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the petitioner, (2) as to whether respondent Nos. 3 and 4 require the premises bona fide for their use, (3) what is the comparative hardship vis-a-vis the parties to these proceedings and (4) as to whether the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had sent six months' notice in terms of the proviso appended to the Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 8. Learned Prescribed Authority found that there exists a relationship between the landlord and tenant between the parties. 3 and 4 had sent six months' notice in terms of the proviso appended to the Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 8. Learned Prescribed Authority found that there exists a relationship between the landlord and tenant between the parties. As regards, second point of determination regarding bona fide need of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the learned Prescribed Authority on the basis of analysis of evidence available on record has given a categorical finding that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have bona fide and genuine need of the premises in question. Citing various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court on the issue of determination of bonadife requirement, learned Prescribed Authority has given a finding that so far as Flat No. 104, Halwasia Market, Hazratganj, Lucknow is concerned, the same is in joint ownership of the father of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and their uncle, which is in possession of their uncle. In respect of house No. 41/208, a finding has been given by the learned Prescribed Authority that respondent nos. 3 & 4 are Chartered Accountants and for their profession, they will require appropriate space and further that it is on account of this bona fide requirement that the premises in question has been purchased by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. It has also been observed by the learned Prescribed Authority that the objection made by the petitioner to the application moved under section 21(1) (a) of the Act cannot be entertained for the reason that he has another accommodation, namely, Flat no. 506-A, 5th floor, Pashupati Apartment, Narhi, Lucknow. 9. Learned Prescribed Authority has also returned the finding that the petitioner has utterly failed to establish that he is having constrained relationship with his son as there is no evidence on record to support his submission. The said finding is also based on the admission made by the petitioner that loan for procuring flat was applied for jointly by his son and the petitioner. Therefore, the pleas of there being constrained relationship between the petitioner and his son is not acceptable. On thorough analysis of the evidence available, the Prescribed Authority has thus, concluded that respondent nos. 3 & 4 need the premises in question for their use bona fide and requirement is genuine. 10. Therefore, the pleas of there being constrained relationship between the petitioner and his son is not acceptable. On thorough analysis of the evidence available, the Prescribed Authority has thus, concluded that respondent nos. 3 & 4 need the premises in question for their use bona fide and requirement is genuine. 10. In respect of comparative hardship, the finding has been recorded by the learned Prescribed Authority that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are unable to carry on their profession on account of paucity of space and since during pendency of said application, the petitioner has not made any attempt to find out any other accommodation, the plea of comparative hardship is to be accepted in favour of respondent nos. 3 & 4 and against the petitioner. On the basis of evidence available, the Prescribed Authority has also given a finding that the petitioner and his family has an alternative accommodation. Relying on the various Judgments of this Court, it has, thus, been held by the Prescribed Authority that since no attempt has been made by the petitioner to find out another accommodation, the issue of comparative hardship goes in favour of respondent nos. 3 & 4. 11. In respect of issue as to whether the respondent nos. 3 & 4 have served six months' mandatory notice as required under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, it has been held by the learned Prescribed Authority that notice can be given even before expiry of the period of three years from the date of purchase of premises. Placing reliance of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional District Judge and Others reported in (1998) 1 SCC 732 , the learned Prescribed Authority has held that what the proviso to section 21(1)(a) of the Act provides is that unless the period of three years has elapsed since the date of purchase of premises, no application shall be entertained on the ground mentioned in section 21(1)(a) of the Act. Drawing the distinction between the institution and entertaining an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority has held that since on the date of judgment, three years period has elapsed, as such, the plea raised by the petitioner based on the proviso is not available. 12. Drawing the distinction between the institution and entertaining an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority has held that since on the date of judgment, three years period has elapsed, as such, the plea raised by the petitioner based on the proviso is not available. 12. The Judgment and order of learned Prescribed Authority was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which, too, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate court below giving categorical finding that notice as required under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was served on the petitioner which is established from perusal of the notice (paper no. B-24/46) and postal receipt (paper no. C-25/2) and thus, the appellate court has refused to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned Prescribed Authority. 13. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that no notice as required under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was served and presumption of service of notice drawn by learned court below is not correct. He has further stated that learned courts below have not correctly appreciated the evidence available on record and have not thus ascertained the bona fide need in correct perspective. 14. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 has vehemently argued that once it is proved that the petitioner has acquired a premises, the explanation appended to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act will apply and no such plea on behalf of the petitioner shall be available to him. He has further stated that in view of the provision contained in the said explanation, since the petitioner has already acquired another accommodation, as such, plea of bona fide need shall not be available to the petitioner. 15. Having considered the arguments made by learned counsel appearing for respective parties, In respect of finding recorded by the learned court below relating to bona fide need and comparative hardship, I am of the considered opinion that findings are based on appropriate appreciation of the evidence available on record, hence, the same need not be interfered with. 16. The only question which falls for consideration by this court is as to whether the six months notice which is mandatory in nature in terms of the provision contained in proviso appended to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was served on the petitioner or not. 17. 16. The only question which falls for consideration by this court is as to whether the six months notice which is mandatory in nature in terms of the provision contained in proviso appended to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was served on the petitioner or not. 17. This Court has perused the record of learned lower courts below. Paper No. B-24/46 is copy of the notice dated 26.09.2007, which is available on the record of the trial court. Paper no. C- 25/2 is the postal receipt dated 26-09-2007, which is addressed to the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid documents which are available on record of learned trial court, it is clear that notice dated 26-09-2007 was served on the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture is that Paper No. C-25/2, which is the postal receipt does, not contain any address and as such, it cannot be presumed that notice was sent to the petitioner on his correct address. In this regard, it may only be observed that paper No. B-24/46 which a copy of the notice contains address of the petitioner as 41/210, Ram Ratan Bajpai Road, Narhi, Lucknow. Merely because the postal receipt does not make a mention of the house number, rather it only makes a mention of the Mohalla where the house is situated, it cannot be said that notice was not served to the petitioner at his correct address. The postal receipts these dates are issued by an electronic machine and possibility of not mentioning the house number while issuing receipt cannot be denied. The notice which is on record mentions correct address of the petitioner and as such the plea being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not acceptable. 18. It is also noticeable that in the affidavit which is in the shape of evidence filed by the respondent no. 3 before the Prescribed Authority against amended paras of Written Statement, it was categorically mentioned that after purchase of house in question, respondent nos. 3 and 4 have served the mandatory notice of six months on 26-09-2007 on the petitioner and the copy of the said notice has also been filed as evidence and that it is only after expiry of period of mandatory notice of six months that respondent no. 3 and 4 have served the mandatory notice of six months on 26-09-2007 on the petitioner and the copy of the said notice has also been filed as evidence and that it is only after expiry of period of mandatory notice of six months that respondent no. 3 and 4 had preferred application/petition under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The said averments have been made in para 4 of the affidavit of respondent no. 3 which is paper no. B -44. The record of court below does not reveal that said averment was ever denied or rebutted by the petitioner. 19. Looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the discussions made and reasons given herein above, in the result, the petition fails, which is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.