Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) This is a typical case : unfortunate one may say. One has heard, a brother contesting a case against other brothers : or a son against his father though rare but not unheard of--but this is a case between a daughter and her mother. They even deny the names of each other. One does not hear such cases ; at least I haven't. I wish this case could have been settled amicably. With the help of the advocates, efforts were made but were unsuccessful. Now. I have to undertake this painful duty to decide this matter on merits. Here are the facts. FACTS
(2.) Sri Hardwari Lal and his wife (the mother) have three daughters. The dispute here is between the youngest daughter (the daughter) and wife of Hardwari Lal, the mother of the youngest daughter. Sri Hardwari Lal is a silent spectator in this dispute and the two other daughters are the players behind the scenes siding with their mother ; they have filed affidavits contradicting their younger sister's version and supporting the mother's.
(3.) The mother filed an application under Section 2A (5) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (the Act) for ejectment of the daughter from a part (the premises) of the house situate at mohalla Dilwaraganj. Thana Kotwall. Shahjahanpur. This application was filed on the ground : The mother was the owner of the house. In whose part (the premises) the daughter was residing as a licensee. The ownership was claimed on the basis of the sale deed dated 18.10.1967 where the name of purchaser is mentioned as Rama Devi wife of Hardwari Lal. A Joint Intimation of this licence same was given to the District Magistrate on 14.2.1996. The daughter was refusing to vacate the same after the expiry and determination of the licence. The name of the daughter is Ram Devi and not Rama Devi. Her (the mother's) name is Rama Devi and not Ram Kali as claimed by the daughter.;