(1.) S. C. Verma, J. The controversy raised in the present petition is as to whether the alleged licensor and licensee without complying the first proviso of Section 2-A of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would amount to creating a licence covered by the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act and the licen see if omits or refuses to vacate the building is liable for eviction in accordance with the provisions of Section 2-A (5) of the Act.
(2.) IT is necessary to state relevant facts and quote the provisions of Section 2-A of the Act.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority in proceedings under Section 2-A (5) read with Section 21 of the Act by order dated 23-12-1991 directed for the eviction of Smt. Usha Singh from the disputed accommodation and to deliver the possession to Smt. Kamla Devi. THE order of the Prescribed Authority dated 23-12- 1991 has been as sailed in the present writ petition mainly on the ground that no license as required under Section 2-A of the Act was granted after complying the requirements of First Proviso to Section 2- A of the Act and as such, the petitioner would not be a licensee for an action for her eviction being taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 2-A (5) of the Act.