ARUN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. RAMA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment rendered by learned Second Additional District Judge, Roorkee (Haridwar) on 17.7.2015, hence are being taken up together for admission by this Court.

(2.) Having heard the rival submissions put forth by learned counsel of either party, it transpires that the dispute pertains to a shop, the admitted owner whereof is Smt. Shyam Lata, who succeeded the same from her husband. Twenty years back, the shop, in question, was under tenancy of one Mr. Khushi Ram, against whom the proceedings u/s 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, were initiated by the Landlord and such shop could be got vacated in August, 1998 to be used by its owner. But unfortunately, husband of Smt. Shyam Lata had lost his life by that time, so she started to run that grocery shop at her own. Since, she was also having a daughter, deserted by her husband, living with Smt. Shyam Lata, so the whole circumstances found such a plot that at the initiation of her own son Ram Gopal (close friend of one Subodh Kumar), she agreed to handover possession of said shop to Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma (real brother of Subodh Kumar) and thus, Mr. Sharma succeeded Smt. Shyam Lata in the shop to run the same.

(3.) The only question between the parties is whether the transfer of such shop from Smt. Shyam Lata to Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, was in the form of a 'Lease' or a 'Licence'. It was vociferously argued by Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, that such transaction was definitely a 'Lease' and in any case, it was not a 'Licence. This assertion is in quite contrast of the facts as are being asserted (vice versa) by Smt. Shyam Lata, who, over the time, was succeeded by her daughter Smt. Rama Rani. The fact which cannot be lost sight of is that since Mr. Ram Gopal (S/o Shyam Lata) was a government servant somewhere, so the circumstances were not suitable for him, to run that shop himself.