- (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. The landlady has set up the case that she is owner/landlady of house No. 373 situate in Mohalla Nai Basti, Lakhimpur Kheri. The owner and landlord of the adjoining two houses numbered as House No. 372 and 374 wanted to make certain constructions in House No. 372 and they being closely relate, the permission was granted to occupy part of the accommodation. The son of the landlady who was engaged in legal profession, retained some portion for his professional work and possession of the remaining accommodation in the disputed house was given to the petitioner. The landlady Smt. Kamla Devi served a notice on Smt. Usha Singh the petitioner with the allegation that the accommodation was permitted to occupy for three months with" effect from 20-7-1990 but the possession has not been delivered after three months and therefore, the possession may be delivered within one week of the service of the notice. It was further stated that the requisite joint intimation to be given to the District Magistrate, permitting her to occupy the accommodation, could not be given as he refused to sign the intimation. The said notice is contained in Annexure-C. A. 3 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Smt. Kamla Devi. Smt. Usha Singh the petitioner replied to the above notice and she claimed to be the owner of the disputed property. It was alleged that she had entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the house No. 372, 373 and 374 but fraudulently the opposite party No. 1 did not execute the sale deed in her favour in respect of house No. 373. In the above reply Smt. Usha Singh did not mention anything with regard to the refusal to sign the Joint intimation or with regard to the license having been given for three months to occupy the disputed house.
(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. The relevant provisions of the Act are quoted below: "2-A. Special Provisions for short term license: (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 accom modation for a period not exceeding three months without any order of allotment under Section 16: Provided that intimation of the grant of such license 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 license shall not be granted again to any 6ther 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 to 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 license. (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 license 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 sub-section (5) as if it were an order made under Section 21 or under Section 22.;