(1.) THIS writ petition was dismissed in default by me on 25.7.2003. Later on restoration application was filed. On 25.9.2003, learned Counsel for the parties were heard on restoration application as well as writ petition and judgment was reserved. Cause shown in the restoration application is sufficient. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 25.7.2003 dismissing the writ petition in default is set -aside. In this writ petition two points are involved, first is whether the building in dispute belongs to public charitable trust and U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply to it by virtue of section 2(1)(bb) and the second point is whether landlords -respondents who obtained the property on 99 years lease from the previous landlord owner are entitled to file an application before R.C. and E.O. for release when the tenant -petitioner was inducted as tenant by the previous owner landlord.
(2.) THIS writ petition on behalf of tenant is directed against orders dated 19.5.1988 and 6.3.1999 passed by R.C. and E.O./A.D.M. (Supply), Varanasi declaring vacancy of the house in dispute on the ground of acquisition of another house in the same city by the tenant -petitioner. Through the order dated 19.5.1998 passed in case No. 199 of 1997 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition), R.C. and E.O. held that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in dispute and as tenants opposite parties had acquired house in Mohalla Kihukutganj, Varanasi and then names had also been mutated on the said house in the Municipal Corporation record by order dated 19.2.1998 hence the house in dispute was vacant under section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act. Against the aforesaid order review petition was filed by the petitioner -tenant, which was dismissed by the order dated 6.3.1999 passed by R.C. and E.O. (Annexure 22 to the writ petition).
(3.) AS far as the second question of maintainability of application by subsequent lessee is concerned it has been held by various High Courts that under section 109 of T.P. Act not only the purchaser from the lessor but also a subsequent lessee from the lessor is entitled to maintain eviction proceedings against the previous lessee.