RAMADHEEN Vs. ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 13th March, 2009 and 13th January, 2010 declaring vacancy.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant of a residential premises No. 106/262-A(1), Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur consisting of two rooms with other amenities on the ground floor at a rent of Rs. 150/- per month. One prospective allottee made an application under section 13(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground that the said premises was vacant. Upon a report of the Inspector, vacancy was declared vide order dated 3rd of June, 2008 whereafter the landlord also filed an application for release under section 16(1)(b) of the Act which has been allowed by order dated 13th March, 2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision against the said order which has been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that even though a Government quarter was allotted to him in 2004, it was only temporary allotment and the same has also been cancelled and therefore there was no vacancy.