SATISH PRASAD Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, Petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 16 -12 -1981 passed by Respondent No. 1 declaring thereby the accommodation -43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, vacant under the provisions of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the present dispute are that one N.K. Bajpayee, Respondent No. 3, moved an application on 5 -6 -1981 (registered as case No. 528 of 1981) for allotment of the accommodation stating that Shri Gautam Mathur who was occupying the accommodation in dispute has vacated the same on 4 -6 -1981 and thus the vacancy has occurred and the accommodation may be allotted in his favour. On this application Rent Control Inspector was deputed to make a local inspection and to submit his report. The inspector concerned after inspecting the building -43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad submitted his report on 11 -6 -1981 and stated therein that the aforesaid accommodation has been vacated by Sri Gautam Mathur, a visiting professor of Allahabad University. It has also been mentioned in the report that Shri Gautam Mathur has shifted to Delhi with his family about a month back and has started residing in his own house No. C -1, Gul Mohar Park, New Delhi. It will be proper to clarify here that the aforesaid building has two parts; the northern part is occupied by Sri P.B. Chaudhary as tenant and the present dispute is confined to the southern part of the building. In the inspection report the total accommodation in dispute has also been described according to which there are total nine rooms of different size including one in the first floor besides there being kitchen, two bath rooms and two latrines, varandah, court yard, portico and a lawn. On the basis of this report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy and directed to issue an intimation to the landlord, i.e. Petitioner.

(3.) BOTH the parties were allowed to adduce evidence by means of affidavits. Sri Gautam Mathur also filed his affidavit which is annexure IV to the writ petition. In this affidavit he has stated that Sri P.B. Chaudhary is his uncle and during his brief stay at Allahabad as visiting professor his uncle had permitted him and his family to stay temporarily in a few rooms at 10, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, that after a brief stay he came back to Delhi and no longer residing in the rooms in dispute; that he was not tenant of either Shri P.B. Chaudhary or of the landlord nor he ever paid any rent to either of them for staying in the building. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16 -12 -1981, however, again determined that the accommodation in dispute is vacant and notified the same for allotment. Aggrieved by this order the present writ petition has been filed.