GANI MASTER Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, was allowed by me vide my order dated 9th May, 2002, for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for allowing the aforesaid petition.

(2.) Petitioner, who is the tenant of the building in question, has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, as would be clear from the fact that he has deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972(hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), before the court below concerned and since then matter is pending. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed an application for release of the building in question, whereupon the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Prescribed Authority) directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit inspection report who, on its turn, has submitted his inspection report dated 4.8.1998 and found that at the time of inspection, one Chhote Miyan met at the spot and he informed that in the building in question, there are four, rooms on the ground floor and two rooms only are on the first floor. He further stated that in the year 1987, his father had permitted the petitioner Mohd. Gani son of Lalu to live in one room situated at the first floor, but subsequently petitioner has forcibly occupied remaining one room on the first floor and one room on the ground floor ; and allowed the same to be occupied for his brother and nephew, namely, Maqsood and Raju, respectively and further, on inspection, it was found that in the room situated on the ground floor, the son of Maqsood and his family members have occupied the same as unauthorised occupants and he himself is living out since 1999. The Inspector further submitted that on the spot, petitioner Mohd. Gani, his wife and sons were met and stated that they are living in the said room for past 20-25 years with the consent of the landlord and the rent of the building in question is being deposited in the Court.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered and notices were issued to the parties. The prescribed authority declared the vacancy vide its order dated 19.8.1999, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, and directed the matter to come up for further hearing on 8.9.1999. The petitioner has filed an application dated 25.8.1999 to the effect that he had filed number of documents to demonstrate that they are living in the building in question for more than 30 years, but all these documents and file have been misplaced or deliberately removed from the records, therefore, the order dated 19.8.1999 may be recalled and the applicant may be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the matter, may be decided. No orders, appear to have been passed on the application dated 25.8.1999, filed by the petitioner, whereas the another application that has been filed by the contesting respondent under Section 16 (1)(b) of the Act was allowed by the prescribed authority for release of the building in question. Since the prescribed authority vide its order dated 22.7.2000, has held that since the building has already been declared vacant by the order dated 19.8.1999 and the application dated 25.8.1999 has been filed by the petitioner after the declaration of the vacancy, therefore, the order declaring the vacancy cannot be recalled. The prescribed authority vide its order dated 22.7.2000 released the building in question in favour of the landlord.