JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the tenant of shop No. 43/44 situated at Topkhana Bazar Cantt. Lucknow. The shop is at ground floor and was let out by Late Hanuman Prasad, the landlord and father of the opposite parties No. 2 to 5. The petitioner is doing business of sweets and namkeen in the said shop in the name and style of 'Sharma Misthan Bhandar'. Late Hanuman Prasad died on 2.12.1999 and Smt. Vimla Devi, the widow became the landlord. Smt. Vimla Devi was the only owner of 1/4th share of the property of late Hanuman Prasad which was given on rent and therefore she was receiving rent from the petitioner during her lifetime. Smt. Vimla Devi willed her share of the shop in question to Smt. Suman Agarwal, her married daughter. After death of Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Suman Agarwal became landlord of the property i.e., the shop on 19.5.2009. The release application was filed by Bhagwan Das Agarwal the brother of Smt. Suman Agarwal who was not the landlord. The case was registered as P.A. Case No. 11 of 2011 under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'Act 1972') by mentioning the need of Smt. Suman Agarwal due to desertion of Smt. Suman Agarwal by her husband Santosh. The petitioner filed objections to the maintainability of the P.A. Case No. 11 of 2011 because the release application was filed not by the owner of the shop Smt. Suman Agarwal but by her brother and also it was alleged that Smt. Suman Agarwal after becoming owner of the shop had not given any notice to the petitioner, her tenant under section 21(1)(a) of the Act 1972. The objection of the petitioner paper No. C-41 was pending since 23.5.2014 and was not decided, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 20955 (MS) of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 1.8.2019 disposed of petition with a direction to the opposite party No. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner moved on 23.5.2014 and pass appropriate order thereon within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. It has been submitted that the application had now been rejected by opposite party No. 1 on 11.9.2019 without considering the fact that Smt. Suman Agarwal had got ownership of the shop after the death of her mother on the basis of Will. Since, there was a transfer of ownership, Section 21(1)(a) of the Act and the proviso thereto would become applicable in such circumstances. 3. This Court has perused the order impugned dated 11.9.2019. 4. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order as under the proviso of section 21(1)(a) of the Act 1972 only when transfer of ownership is through "purchase" notice has to be given by the new landlord to the tenant and not less than six months time should have elapsed before release application can be filed and entertained. The release application can also be entertained on behalf of the new landlord if at least three years time had elapsed from the date of purchase of the property by the new landlord till the date of filing the release application. 5. It is the admitted fact and mentioned in the order impugned that Smt. Suman Agarwal was bequeathed the property by her mother through a Will. On the transfer of ownership through a Will, there is no question of the applicability of the proviso to section 21(1)(a) of the Act 1972. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this proviso does not prevent the prescribed authority from deciding a release application in case such release application is filed by the landlord and three years have elapsed from the date of filing of such application before its decision. 6. It is admitted case that the release application was filed in 2011. The objections were decided regarding the maintainability in September 2019 i.e., almost after eight years. The shop in question devolved upon Smt. Suman Agarwal through Will in May, 2009 when her mother died. 7. With regard to the validity of order dated 7.11.2019 passed by the prescribed authority, which order has also been challenged in this petition, this Court finds from a perusal of the same that there is no infirmity therein. The shop in question devolved upon Smt. Suman Agarwal through Will in May, 2009 when her mother died. 7. With regard to the validity of order dated 7.11.2019 passed by the prescribed authority, which order has also been challenged in this petition, this Court finds from a perusal of the same that there is no infirmity therein. The High Court had expedited the disposal of P.A. Case No. 11 of 2011 and repeated applications have been given by the petitioner which shows that the tenant is enjoying the property in question seeking adjournments of the matter only to delay the final orders being passed on the release application and delivery of the possession. 8. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.