RAM PRASAD MISHRA ALIAS JAGDEESH MISHRA AND OTHERS Vs. UPPER ZILA ADHIKARI/PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, KANPUR NAGAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 1, declaring the building in question as vacant and order dated 11.7.2000 whereby the building in question has been released in favour of the landlords.

(2.) It appears that proceedings for allotment under Sec. 16 of the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for short, "the Act") were initiated. The building was directed to be inspected by the Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control Inspector after making local inspection submitted inspection report to the effect that Shitala Prasad Misra happened to be the chief tenant of the building in question who vacated the building and shifted to House No. 108/113, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur after giving possession to Jagdish Mishra and Girish Mishra, petitioners No. 1 and 2. On the basis of the said report, notices were issued to the concerned parties. On receipt of notice, parties appeared before respondent No. 1 and filed their objections and produced evidence in support of their cases. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after perusing the material on record came to the conclusion that Shitala Prasad Mishra was the chief tenant of the building in question who left it in the year 1993 and shifted to House No. 108/113, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 have taken possession over the building in question without any order of allotment. Having recorded the said finding, respondent No. 1 has declared the building in question as vacant and released it in favour of the landlords. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that petitioner No. 3 was the tenant in chief of the building in question. Since very beginning he was in occupation of the building. Respondent No. 1 has acted illegally in treating the building in question as vacant. It was also urged that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the members of the family of petitioner No. 3, therefore, there was no question of vacancy. The impugned order, according to learned Counsel for the petitioners, was liable to be quashed.