DAULAT RAM Vs. RENT CONTROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has arisen from the order dated 10.11.2003 (Anenxure-11 to the writ petition) of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO"), declaring vacancy in the building in dispute and directing for notifying vacancy for allotment; and, the order dated 05.08.2004, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "Revisional Court"), dismissing petitioner's Rent Revision No. 3 of 2004.

(2.) The dispute relates to shop no.3, which is a part of House No. 108/153, P. Road, P.S. Bajaraia, Kanpur Nagar. The house in dispute was initially owned by Sri Santeshwar Nath Nigam, Krishna Murari Nigam and Govind Murari Nigam, all sons of Dwarka Nath Nigam,. A lease deed was executed by Sri Santeshwar Nath Nigam on 27.09.1949 in favour of one Jagdish Hajela, letting out entire building and premises no.108/153, P. Road, Kanpur. Pursuant to the lease rights conferred upon Sri Hajela, shop in question was sublet by Sri Hajela to Sri Peshumal, father of the petitioner. It is said that initially, the business in the shop was carried out jointly by Sri Peshumal and his other son Ram Chandra, brother of the petitioner. Later on business was carried out as joint Hindu family business. The rent was paid to Sri Hajela till 1986 and after his death, the same was paid to his son Gyan Chand Hajela. On 05.04.2002 the owners of the premises no. 108/153 sold a part of the house, which included the shop in dispute, through a registered sale deed dated 05.04.2002 to Prakhar Rastogi, respondent no.2. The petitioner Daulat Ram was alleged to be in occupation of the shop in dispute, since 1987, unauthorisedly and hence, there is a vacancy.

(3.) The Rent Control Inspector (for short "RCI"), made a spot inspection and submitted his report dated 31.03.2003. He found petitioner, in occupation of the shop in dispute, but said, that, neither the earlier owner accepted petitioner as tenant nor the present owner, and therefore, his possession of the shop in dispute was unauthorised. He also said that upto 1980-82, the earlier tenant Jagdish Chandra was occupying the shop in dispute but the present occupation by the petitioner is not only unauthorised but illegal.