KISHORE KUMAR Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant of the accommodation in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. The accommodation in dispute is a storey two building, namely, first ground floor and second floor. In the ground floor the petitioner is residing since 1976. However, it is alleged that the landlord was not issuing the rent receipt inspite of repeated demands and it was only in March, 1988 that the respondent -landlord started issuing rent receipts. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 2 has nine rooms in his possession and there are two members in his family. Landlord filed release application under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Copy of the said release application is Annexure 1 to the petition. In this application the landlord has alleged that in the ground floor of the disputed accommodation, there is only one baithak, one room, kitchen, store -room, latrine and bathroom while on the first floor, there are only two rooms. The applicant was on the post of Divisional Traffic Superintendent and he retired from 31st July, 1979. After his retirement he is living in house at No. 91, Durga Barhi, Meerut. In para 4 of the release application it is mentioned that the father of Kishore Kumar, Paras Ram was Khalasi in the Railways and was known to the applicant. In 1984 Paras Ram came to the applicant and requested him to give a portion of the building in question for a few days for his son, Kishore Kumar the petitioner in the writ petition. In para 5 of the said application it is stated that on the request of Paras Ram he gave the portion of the building to Kishore Kumar but Kishore Kumar took advantage of the kindness of the applicant and after taking possession declared himself to be the tenant on a rent of Rs. 150 per month. The applicant has been asking Kishore Kumar to vacate the premises but to no avail. The applicant has alleged that he needs the accommodation for his own purpose and hence the disputed portion of the building should be released in his favour. Kishore Kumar has alleged that no intimation was given to him about the visit of the Inspector on 6 -3 -1990 and he was not given any notice under Rule 8(2). Copy of the inspection report was not served on him or on any other family member but it was served on his minor daughter Roshni. When the petitioner came to know about proceedings under Rent Control, he immediately filed objection against the inspection report (Annexure 4 to the petition). In this objection the petitioner has alleged that he has been a tenant of the disputed accommodation since March, 1976.

(2.) ON 24 -1 -1991 vacancy was declared and the petitioner has alleged that the declaration of the vacancy was illegal on various grounds including non -compliance of Rule 9(3). The order dated 24 -1 -1991 declaring vacancy has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) IN impugned order it is stated that it is admitted to both the parties that rent receipts were issued only from 1984. Accordingly the inference that the premises in dispute was given into the possession of the petitioner only from the year 1984 and not from 1976 is quite reasonable. Since the petitioner does not have any allotment order, his occupation cannot be regularised. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed - There shall be no order as to costs.