Kamla Devi Vs. Usha Singh and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6077 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10921 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10921 of 1996)
Petitioner: Kamla Devi
Respondent: Usha Singh and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6077 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10921 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10921 of 1996)
Judges: M.M.PUNCHHI AND S.P.KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 07, 1997
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Section 2A – Possession from licensee – Intimation to District Magistrate to be given jointly by licensor and licensee – Licence created, but licensee not joining with licensor. Held that Dis-trict Magistrate was not oblige to have the possession restored to licensors. Ordinary civil remedy lies. (Para 3)
U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Section 2A – Possession from licensee – Intimation to District Magistrate to be given jointly by licensor and licensee – Licence created, but licensee not joining with licensor. Held that Dis-trict Magistrate was not oblige to have the possession restored to licensors. Ordinary civil remedy lies. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. A special provision for creation of short-term licences is
available in Section 2-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Thereunder, a person
occupying a building as an owner, or as a tenant, or in any other
capacity may, without any order of allotment under Section 16,
permit another person’s occupation of premises on licence for
residential purposes for a temporary period not exceeding three
months. There is, however, a rider to it that intimation of the
grant of such licence shall be given to the District Magistrate
jointly by the licensor and the licensee within one month from
the date of occupation of the building or a part thereof. Sub-
section(5) of Section 2-A provides that if the licensee omits or
refuses to vacate the building or part thereof after the expiry
of the period of licence, the licensor may make an application to
the prescribed authority for his eviction, and the prescribed
authority shall thereupon order his eviction, and its order shall be final.
3. Here, the respondent who allegedly got into occupation of the
building in dispute at the behest of the appellant did not join
with the appellant to give intimation to the District Magistrate
in terms of the provisions of sub-section (1) aforementioned.
That provision in the instant case having not been complied with,
the District Magistrate was under no obligation to have the
possession restored to the licensor in the event of the licensee
omitting or refusing to vacate. Here the respondent has rather
disputed the licence altogether and has rather claimed entitle-ment to the property. Relief under the Act has been refused to the appellant on the ground that since the licence suggestedly
created did not derive any legal sanction from the provision
above-referred to, no help was renderable to the appellant and
that he would have to resort to his ordinary civil remedy to get
back the possession of the property in dispute. We see no reason
to take any other view than the one taken by the authorities and
the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. A special provision for creation of short-term licences is
available in Section 2-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Thereunder, a person
occupying a building as an owner, or as a tenant, or in any other
capacity may, without any order of allotment under Section 16,
permit another person’s occupation of premises on licence for
residential purposes for a temporary period not exceeding three
months. There is, however, a rider to it that intimation of the
grant of such licence shall be given to the District Magistrate
jointly by the licensor and the licensee within one month from
the date of occupation of the building or a part thereof. Sub-
section(5) of Section 2-A provides that if the licensee omits or
refuses to vacate the building or part thereof after the expiry
of the period of licence, the licensor may make an application to
the prescribed authority for his eviction, and the prescribed
authority shall thereupon order his eviction, and its order shall be final.
3. Here, the respondent who allegedly got into occupation of the
building in dispute at the behest of the appellant did not join
with the appellant to give intimation to the District Magistrate
in terms of the provisions of sub-section (1) aforementioned.
That provision in the instant case having not been complied with,
the District Magistrate was under no obligation to have the
possession restored to the licensor in the event of the licensee
omitting or refusing to vacate. Here the respondent has rather
disputed the licence altogether and has rather claimed entitle-ment to the property. Relief under the Act has been refused to the appellant on the ground that since the licence suggestedly
created did not derive any legal sanction from the provision
above-referred to, no help was renderable to the appellant and
that he would have to resort to his ordinary civil remedy to get
back the possession of the property in dispute. We see no reason
to take any other view than the one taken by the authorities and
the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
