S L KHER Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(2.) THE dispute relates to the premises known as 'paramountcy' (Nainital ). THE petitioner claims that it was being used as lodging house for which he had obtained licence under relevant Act. Copies of the licence have been filed as Annexure 1,2,3 and 4 to the writ petition. It appears that respondent No. 2 made some complaint and on that basis proceedings were in itiated under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called the Act' ).

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has passed im pugned order on the basis that certain portion of the premises used as lodge was never occupied by the customers and far ther placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Mr. A. N. Verma, J. in the case of Smt. Asha Devi v. Vllth Additional District Judge and others, reported in 1980 (UP) 2 RCC 118. In the said decision learned single Judge observed that the explanation provides that an occupant of a room in a hotel lodging used shall not be deemed to be a tenant but the premises in question is not included in Section 2 of the Act, which enumerates buildings to which the Act does not apply. Learned single Judge also observed that the petitioner in that case had failed to prove that premises in ques tion was in fact lodging house. In the in stant case, however, there is no finding that the premises is not a lodging house. There is no dispute on that score in our case.