Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. Rathi, J.
RAM KISHAN - Appellant
Versus
RAM CHANDRA - Respondents
Second Appeal 1078 Of 2002
Decided On : 09/27/2002
A.N.SINHA, P.S.Yadav, Pankaj Mithal, SATYA PRAKASH
Interpretation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the requirements for eviction of licensees.
Headnote:
Eviction - Licensee - Interpretation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a real brother of the appellants, filed a suit for eviction against the appellants alleging that they were licensees. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. The appellants filed a second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the argument that the licensee cannot be evicted without the order of the District Magistrate as provided in Clause (5) of Section 2a of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It also found that no substantial question of law arises for decision in this appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Interpretation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, revocation of license, and waiver of notice for termination of the license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply to the premises in dispute, and the regular suit for eviction is not barred under Section 2a of the Act. It also determined that no notice is required for termination of the license, as it was not coupled with the grant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Pankaj Mitthal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Satya Prakash and Sri A, n. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.
( 2 ) THE respondent is real brother of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and son of appellant No. 3. He filed a suit for eviction against the appellants alleging that they were licensees. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The first appellate court has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.
( 3 ) IT is contended that the licencee cannot be evicted without the order of the District Magistrate as provided in Clause (5) of Section 2a of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
( 4 ) THIS argument cannot be accepted as there is no plea that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, apply to the premises in dispute. The plea was taken for the first time in the appeal, which was rejected on the ground that there is no allegations that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, apply to the premises in dispute. Therefore, this plea cannot be permitted to be raised now. Apart from it, the regular suit for eviction is not barred under Section 2a of the Act.
( 5 ) NEXT it is contended that licence was revoked by notice dated 26. 6. 1995 and thereafter the licence was extended for a period of one year. The suit was filed in the year 1996. Therefore, the notice terminating the licence was waived. However, no notice is required for termination of the licence, as it was not coupled with the grant.
( 6 ) I find that no substantial question of law arises for decision in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
.
