JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma , J. 1. Since, the common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. A very small controversy involved in these matters is whether the issuance of six months’ notice is sine qua non before filing the petition under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity). 3. It is evident from a plain language of Section 21 of the Act that issuance of six months’ notice is mandatory before filing a petition u/s 21 of the Act. The underlying principle of Section 21(1) of the Act to give six months’ notice to the tenant is to prepare him mentally to vacate the premises within a period of six months to avoid any harassment. 4. In the present matters, admittedly the landlord has not issued six months’ notice to any of the tenants before filing the petitions. The tenants have been given only thirty days’ notice to vacate the premises, that too under Section 20(1) of the Act. 5. Sections 20 and 21(1) of the Act operate entirely in two different areas. The legislature, in its own wisdom, has prescribed thirty days’ notice u/s 20 of the Act and the period of six months u/s 21 of the Act. 6. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent in the case of ‘Udhav Ram v. Vani Tripathi’ 2002 DGLS (Soft.) 235, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not applicable in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Prescribed Authorities and the Appellate Authorities are set aside.