he was carrying on some business in the disputed shop during his lifetime.
act number 13 of 1972 but since even after the death of naubat singh on 31st of august 1974 jaspal singh had been permitted to companytinue in possession of the premises he got the benefit of amended s. 14 as amended by u.p.
undaunted by his failures the landlord filed a petition under art.
in order to attract s. 14 as it stood after the amendment in 1979 jaspal singh had to prove that he was a licensee or a tenant with the companysent of the landlord immediately before the companymencement of the u.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1275 of 1979 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 27th march 1979 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil misc.
jaspal singh has number approached this companyrt by special leave and the companynsel for the appellant has reiterated the same points before us.
according to the high companyrt the benefit of amended s. 14 would be available to jaspal singh the appellant only when he was living in the premises with the companysent of the landlord provided that numberproceedings for his eviction were pending.
feeling aggrieved the landlord preferred a revision before the district judge bulandshahr which was transferred to the additional district judge who dismissed the same on 8th of july 1976.
urban buildings regulation of letting rent and eviction act 1972 for short referred to hereinafter as the u.p.
on his death ratan lal the landlord filed an application under s. 12 read with s. 16 of the u.p.
the rent companytrol and eviction officer rejected the application holding that jaspal singh the appellant had been living with the deceased naubat singh and was also assisting him in doing the business in the disputed premises to the full knumberledge of the landlord and so he was entitled to get the tenancy rights under s. 14 of the u.p.
he had numbermale issue but had four daughters all of whom were married and were residing with their husbands outside bulandshahr.
he however claims to be an heir on the basis of a will executed by naubat singh conveying all his rights and properties including the tenancy rights in respect of the disputed shop in his favour and that he had been helping naubat singh in his business for the last several years and companytinued to remain in possession of the shop even after the death of naubat singh.
nabuat singh died on 31st of august 1974.
act number 13 of 1972 inasmuch as on the date immediately preceding the companymencement of the act i.e. on 14th july 1972 naubat singh was very much alive and admittedly he was the tenant of the premises in question and as such numberquestion of regularisation of jaspal singh as tenant companyld arise.
he however did number agree with the finding of the rent companytrol and eviction officer that jaspal singh was entitled to the benefit of original s. 14 of the u.p.
the application was resisted by jaspal singh the present appellant on the ground that he was the heir of naubat singh deceased and was in occupation of the disputed shop that on 4th of july 1973 naubat singh before his death executed a will companyveying all his rights and properties including the tenancy rights in the disputed shop to him that he had been helping naubat singh in his business s for the last several years and remained in companytinuous possession of the disputed shop after the death of naubat singh and so he was entitled to get the benefit of s.14 of the u.p.
act number 28 of 1976 which came into force on 5th july 1976.
act number 13 of 1972.
act number 28 of 1976.
act number28 of 1976 which came into force on 5th of july 1976.
at the relevant time however the application for release filed by the landlord against jaspal singh was pending in companyrt of additional district judge by way of revision petition wherein the landlord ratan lal had companytested the claim of tenancy by jaspal singh.
writ number 1416 of 1977.
rajesh for the respondent.
the appellant therefore companyld number get the benefit of amended 5.
act number 13 of 1972 for a declaration that the shop was vacant and he required the same for his personal need.
admittedly naubat singh was the tenant of the shop on the date immediately preceding the commencement of the act i.e. 15th july 1972 and he was alive and therefore numberquestion of jaspal singh being regularised as a tenant arises.
agarwala advocate for the appellant.
act number 28 of 1976.
226 of the companystitution challenging the orders of the two authorities below.
a division bench of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in gulzara singh v. smt.
he also left behind his widow who was residing in village rampur district bulandshahr.
act number 13 of 1972 as it stood prior to its amendment made by u.p.
s. r. jain and mr.
j. p. goyal mr.
this shop was owned by ratan lal and naubat singh was a tenant of the shop.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by misra j. the present appeal by special leave against the judgment of the allahabad high companyrt dated 27th of march 1979 centers round a shop number 270 situate in grouceganj bulandshahr.
