RAM SWARUP Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed against the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur in proceedings under Section 16(5) Section 19 of the U.P. Urban buildings (Regualtion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) THE dispute is about shop facing road in premises No. 49/62 Bagla Building, Nayaganj, Kanpur. The proceedings on an application for allotment moved by respondent No. 3 alleging that the premises in dispute were in the tenancy of one Ganga Shanker Panday who had sublet the same to one Satya Narain Mehrotra and consequently there was a vacancy in law. He applied for allotment of the same in his favour. The premises alleged to have been inspected by the Senior Inspector on 2nd July, 1976. The report of the Senior Inspector in Annexure 'Ka A-1-1/7'. The report says that one Satya Narain Mehrotra was found in occupation of the premises, who disclosed that he had occupied the same for the last five or six months. The shop was in the tenancy of Ganga Shanker Pandey and he was paying rent of Rs. 250/- per month's to him. The building was attached buy the income-tax Department for realisation of the tax from the owners. On the aforesaid facts the Inspector reported that there appeared to be a vacancy and the shop may be declared vacant after information to the landlord. The same day there is an order passed at the bottom of the report declaring the vacancy. Thereafter the disputed premises were alloted in favour of respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 1 under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act. Proceedings for taking possession were taken and when the petitioner came to know about the allotment, he move an application 9th October, 1967 for review under Section 16(5) of the Act. A copy of that application is Annexure 'I' to the writ petition. He also adduced evidence before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to show that Satya Narain Mehrotra had nothing to do with the building. The building was allotted in his favour on 4.10.1959 and he was in continuous occupation thereof and was paying Rs. 49/- per month as rent. He also produced the copies of the quinquinial assessments made by the Municipal Board and Nagar Mahapalika showing that in the quinquinial assessment the disputed shop was shown in the tenancy of Ganga Shanker Pandey during the assessment of years 1st April, 1958 to 31st March, 1963. The disputed shop was shown in outer portion on the ground floor, In the subsequent quinquinial from 1st April, 1963 to 1968 the same portion was shown in the tenancy of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the rent was Rs. 49/- per month in the assessment 1963-68. Internal portion was show separately as beginning from tenanment No. 8 and another the shop No. 24 was in the tenancy of the petitioner at a rent of Rs. 18/75 P. per month.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred a revision under Section 18(1) of the Act. The revisional authority affirmed the judgement of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer holding that the case of the petitioner was very doubtful. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition and seriously challenged the findings arrived at by the authorities below as false, perverse without any basis and imaginary. The learned Judge who heard the petition ordered the premises to be inspected by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by him, The Advocate Commissioner submitted his report which is on record.