GORAKH NATH YADAV Vs. MANGLESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, for the petitioner and Sri Shyamal Narain, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The facts of the case as culled out from records are that petitioner was inducted as tenant in the premises in dispute in 1963 for establishing a Saw Mill. He diversified his business in manufacture and sale of furniture and also constructed temporary tin shed over the pukka walls. Since licenses for saw mills were not renewed from 1998 under orders of the Apex Court the petitioner closed down his business of Saw Mill but alleged that his business of manufacture and sale of furniture continued and he started business of renting out "Patra and Ballis' etc. used in construction of buildings, these are said to be stacked in the open area of the premises in dispute.

(2.) Sri Manglesh Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 1, purchased the premises in dispute on 12.8.2004. It is claimed by the petitioner that when rent tendered to the landlord by money order was refused by the landlord, it was deposited by him regularly under section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972. Thereafter landlord-respondent No. 1 moved an application on 12.9.2007 under section 16(b) of the Act for establishing his Hospital/Clinic on the ground that he is running his clinic in a rented premises and the landlord of that building has asked him to vacate it. The landlord also stated that the petitioner had constructed his own seven shops and also a residential accommodation within 200 meters from the premises in dispute from where he is carrying on his various businesses for the last 10 years and the premises in dispute is lying unused since then and has decayed as such in the circumstances the premises in dispute be released.

(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, in order to ascertain the factum of actual vacancy, got the premises in dispute inspected by the Rent Control Inspector (hereinafter referred to R.C.I.) under Rule 8 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. The R.C.I. after inspection, submitted his report dated 5.8.2008 to the effect that saw mill business of the petitioner is closed; that the verandah where the saw mill is installed is in a dilapidated condition but reported that activity of manufacture of furniture was seen and that some furniture was found stacked in the two of the rooms. He also referred to an injunction order passed in civil suit No. 1026 of 2001, Gorakhnath Yadav v. Smt. Vindhyavasni Devi opining that in view of the stay/injunction order which is effective upto 16.9.2008 proceedings for release may not be proper. This report is appended by the petitioner as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.