ZAHEER BEG Vs. MOHD. MOBIN KHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 04.12.1998 passed by the respondent No. 7 allowing the application filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6 under Section 2 -A(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act. It appears that respondents No. 1 to 6 filed an application under Section 2 -A(5) of the Act before the respondent No. 7 claiming that the petitioner was granted a temporary licence, the term of which came to end but he did not vacate the building in question, he was, therefore, liable to be ejected. On receipt of the notices, the petitioner filed a written statement before the respondent No. 2 denying the facts stated in the application filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 and asserting that the provisions of Section 2 -A(5) of the Act have got no application in the present case. The application filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6 was legally not maintainable and that the application was liable to be dismissed. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the respondent No. 7 framed issues/questions for termination in the case. The Prescribed Authority, after perusing the material on the record and after hearing the parties, returned the findings on the relevant questions in favour of respondents No. 1 to 6 and allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 04.12.1998. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the application filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6 under Section 2 -A(5) of the Act was legally not maintainable. It was submitted that the petitioner was not a licensee within the meaning of the term used under the Act, inasmuch as the provision of sub -section (1) of Section 2 -A were not complied and as the parties never intimated to the District Magistrate about grant of licence nor the District Magistrate passed any order regarding the extension of the term of licence or otherwise. The authority below, therefore, acted in excess of its jurisdiction in holding to the contrary and allowing the application.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record.