KAMLA DEVI Vs. USHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(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 Ss. (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 entitlement 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, No costs.