Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4014 (ALL)

Anurag Singh v. Rent Control

2015-12-16

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 07.11.2015 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (respondent No.1) in rejecting the application dated 19.09.2015 moved by the petitioner to regularise his occupation as a licensee under Section 14 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 3. The submission is that the Authority below had rejected the application on irrelevant grounds. 4. Admitted facts of the case are that the house in question was purchased by the respondent No.2 in the year 2007 under an agreement with the erstwhile owner. The petitioner who is son of the erstwhile owner has been allowed to occupy a portion of the house for a certain period. As he did not vacate the house, proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.2. 5. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 14 of the Act, the submission of the petitioner is that under the agreement dated 09.02.2007 arrived between the respondent no.2 and his father, the erstwhile owner, he was allowed to occupy two rooms, one store, one latrine and one bathroom on the first floor as a licensee. The license has not been revoked till date. No proceedings for his eviction has been initiated before any Court of Law and, therefore, his occupation be regularised under Section 14 of the Act. 6. Admittedly, as per own contention of the petitioner, he is in occupation of the house as a licensee with the consent of respondent no.2 from the year 2007. Section 14 contemplates regularisation of only those occupants who are in occupation of the building prior to the commencement of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1976. 7. The petitioner's occupation as per his own admission being of a licensee from the year 2007 he cannot claim benefit of Section 14 of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this objection was not taken by the Court below and the application was rejected on other grounds. 9. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as the Authority below has categorically recorded that Section 14 is not attracted in the facts of the case. 10. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this objection was not taken by the Court below and the application was rejected on other grounds. 9. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as the Authority below has categorically recorded that Section 14 is not attracted in the facts of the case. 10. Needless to mention that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the proceedings of eviction initiated by the respondents. 11. This writ petition is wholly misconceived and hence dismissed. Petition dismissed.