RAMJI MAURYA Vs. BHAGWAN DAS KHANEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate, for the respondents.

(2.) The writ petition is directed against order dated 29.12.2004 passed by Rent Control & Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrary (Civil Supply), Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") declaring vacancy in the shop in dispute under Sec. 12(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972").

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case set up by landlord was that two-third of shop in dispute was allowed to be occupied by the petitioner to his son-in-law Rajendra Maurya and remaining part i.e. one-third of the shop was allowed to be occupied by his uncle Suraj Nath Maurya, and therefore, shop in dispute had become deemed vacant under Sec. 12(1)(b) of Act, 1972 but RCEO found no evidence that there was any such sub-letting to Sri Rajendra Maurya in respect to the alleged two-third of shop in disputed yet he has illegally held entire shop being deemed vacant on account of the fact that it has been occupied by persons other than family member of the petitioner. He further submitted that in respect to one third part of the shop allowed to have been occupied by petitioner's uncle, there was no evidence, inasmuch as, he was tenant on the first floor of the accommodation in dispute and the evidence referred to in the impugned order in para 8 in respect to M/s Royal Tailors on which his name was mentioned that relates to the premises which was on the first floor of the house in dispute.