- (1.) S. Harkauli, J. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE proceedings began on the application of the landlord for release of a building admittedly covered by the U. P. Rent Control Act (No. XIII of 1972 ). By the impugned order, the Rent Control Officer had confirmed the vacancy in respect of a residential accommodation over-ruling the objection under Rule 8 of the U. P. Rent Control Rules filed by the petitioner who claims to be occupant thereof. The objection of the petitioner/tenant under Rule 8 of the Rent Control Rule was two fold : (i) That father of the petitioner namely Dariyamal was tenant in the said accommodation. Dariyamal died in 1974. After which the tenancy devolved upon the two sons of Dariyamal i. e. , petitioner and Udhav Das. In 1987 Udhav Das died and his widow left for Gauhati for some time but she has come back and is now living in the disputed house. It would be very relevant in this sequence to notice that the widow of Udhav Das is not contesting the vacancy. This contention of the petitioner was disbelieved by the impugned order on the basis of the rent deed of the year 1969 between Udhav Das and landlord. It is obvious that if Dariyamal had been the tenant as alleged by the petitioner that tenancy would have continued till the death of Dariyamal in 1974 and there would be no occasion for Udhav Das in 1969 to enter into an agreement of tenancy with the landlord. Therefore, it has been found that Udhav Das was tenant and Dariyamal was never tenant although Dariyamal may have been residing with his son Udhav in that premises. This tenancy cannot devolve upon the petitioner after death of Udhav Das. Particularly, when widow of Udhav Das is still alive. The second contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises since before 5-7-1976 and therefore, petitioner's tenancy stand regularized under Section 14 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. For ready reference Section 14 is quoted below : "14. Regularisation or occupation of existing tenants.- [notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an unauthorized licensee or tenant of such buildings]. "
(3.) FROM the above words, it will be noticed that regularisation of occupation is only for the persons who were either occupying building as tenant or as licensee. No other occupation is regularized under Section 14 aforesaid. Licensee obviously means licensee of the landlord under Section 2-A of the Act. Because, Udhav Das has been found to be the tenant since 1969 and would have continued as such till 1987 when he died therefore, in 1976 were would be no occasion for the petitioner to occupy the premises in tenancy of his brother Udhav Das either as tenant or as licensee of the landlord.;