AZIM ULLAH Vs. D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against a vacancy order dated 27.5.1996. The connected petition no. 19162 of 1997 is directed against the release order granted in favour of the respondent-landlord but its fate would depend upon the decision of the present case.

(3.) HOWEVER , after the pleadings were exchanged by the parties, one Vasudev filed an application for allotment of the disputed shop on 10.6.1994 alleging vacancy as it was occupied by the petitioner without an order of allotment. After obtaining a report of the Inspector, the Rent Controller issued notice to both the parties, who appeared and filed their respective pleadings and evidence. The Rent Controller rejected the case of the petitioner that he was a tenant since 1975 and went on to hold that he was inducted as a tenant in 1979 without an allotment order in violation of sections, 11, 13, 14, 16, 31, 33 etc. of the Act and declared it to be vacant by the impugned order.