- (1.) M. Katju, J. This second appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court dated 23- 12-1994.
(2.) HEARD Sri Jagdish Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R. H. Zaidi, learned counsel for the respondent. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit against the appellants for evic tion and possession and also for recovery of damages. The plaintiff/respon dent claimed that he was owner of the property in dispute and the defendant/appellant was a licensee in the house. His allegation was that the licence has been revoked. His statement of the defendant/appellants was that they were owners of the property in dispute and hence they could not be evicted. Both the courts below decided the case against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the appellants are protected by Section 14 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. His contention is that he was licensee and hence his licence was regularised by Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. This was not the case of the appellants before the trial court although it was a pleading in the first appellate court. However I have examined this plea and find ao merit in the same Section 14 states:- "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, 1979, 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 authorised licensee or tenant of such building. "
(3.) A reading of the above provision shows that Section 14 does not say that a licensee becomes regularised a tenant. He only becomes an authorised licensee, Section 2-A (1) states:- "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 licensee) 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 upto 6 months 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. " In my opinion the licensee contemplated in Section 2-A is only a licensee for a limited period. Section 2-A (5) states:- "if the licensee omits or refuses to vacate the building or part after the expiry on 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. ";