Ram Kishan and Another vs Ram Chandra

B.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri Pankaj Mitthal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Satya Prakash and Sri A, N. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

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.

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.

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 u/s 2A of the Act.

Next it is contended that licence was revoked by notice dated 26.6.1995 and thereafter the licence was extended for a period of one year.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.

I find that no substantial question of law arises for decision in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.