R.H. Zaidi, J. - (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. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the validity of the order passed by the respondent No. 7. It was contended that the petitioner was held to be a licensee by a decree of the Civil Court which was also upheld by the appellate Court. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that he was not a licensee. It was urged that the writ petition has got no force and the same is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record. Section 2 -A of the Act reads as tinder: 2 -A. Special provisions for short term licence. - -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person occupying a building as owner or as tenant or in any other capacity (hereinafter in this section referred to as licensor) may permit any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as licensee) to occupy for purely temporary residential accommodation for a period not exceeding three months without any order of allotment under Section 16: Provided that intimation of the grant of such licence shall be given jointly by the licensor and the licensee to the District Magistrate within one month from the date of occupation of the building or part by the licensee: Provided further that the District Magistrate may by order, extend the maximum period of such temporary occupation up to 6 months in the aggregate (including the original period of occupation): Provided also that similar licence shall not be granted again to any other person in respect of the same building or part within a period of one year from the date of vacation of the building or part by the last licensee. (2) Such licensee shall not be deemed to be a tenant for purposes of Section 20, notwithstanding that he pays or is liable pay rent for such occupation. (3) Such licensor shall not be deemed to have ceased to occupy such building or part within the meaning of Section 12 merely on the ground of having granted such licence. (4) The District Magistrate shall not make an allotment under Section 16 in respect of the building or part vacated by the licensee except with the consent of the landlord. (5) If the licensee omits or refuses to vacate the building or part 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: Provided that no order shall be made under this sub -section except after giving to the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (6) The provisions of Section 23 shall apply to an order made under subsection (5) as if it were an order made under Section 21 or under Section 22.;