JASPAL SINGH Vs. RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 227, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction quashing the order dated 6.1.2002 passed by respondent No. 3, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Haridwar, whereby he has declared vacancy in respect of the room in question.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that, petitioner's father Sardar Gyan Singh used to reside in the premises in question as a tenant of respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 16 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for allotment of premises in his favour. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on said application on 4.7.2000, according to which the room was found locked. It was further reported by the Inspector that Sardar Gyan Singh had already constructed a house in the same lane. It is alleged in the petition that Rent Control Inspector did not issue mandatory notices, as required by Rule 8 (2) of U, P. Act No. 13 of 1972, prior to the inspection of the premises. Respondent No 2 (the landlord) informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that original tenant Sardar Gyan Singh has expired on 1.1.2001 and, as such, the building is lying vacant. However, petitioner opposed the application for declaration of vacancy and claimed his occupation as tenant in the room. Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order after hearing the parties and declared the vacancy. Aggrieved by said order, this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he was residing in the premises in question from the life time of his father, Sardar Gyan Singh, and, on death of Sardar Gyan Singh, the petitioner is the sole tenant of the premises and separate residence acquired by Sardar Gyan Singh has no effect on the tenancy of the petitioner.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties arid perused the record.