RAJENDRA SINGH JAYAS Vs. VISHAL KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of vacancy followed by release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura in exercise of powers under Sec. 12/16 of UP Act No.13 of 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), which has been affirmed in revision under Sec. 18 of the Act by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are these:

(3.) It appears that some documents were produced before the Rent Control Inspector by Jayas during the inspection. After the Rent Control Inspector's report had been received by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (for short, 'the RC & EO'), notice in the case registered under Sec. 12 of the Act was issued to both sides. Rajendra Singh Jayas, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner', filed his objections to the allotment application on 16/9/2018 before the RC & EO, wherein he said that the applicant for allotment had no need for the property in dispute, inasmuch as he already had available with him a house in the Civil Lines of Mathura. It was also said in the objections that the applicant for allotment had wrongly said that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute. Rather, he was the owner thereof where his family lived. Also that, the petitioner had his business in the same premises under the name and style of Jayas Security Agency. The former owner of the property in dispute was one Balraj Khurana son of Raghunath Rai, who had received the property in dispute from his father. Balraj Khurana lived in the said property occupying it as its owner. Balraj Khurana was not financially well off. The petitioner's family had helped Balraj Khurana, extending substantial financial aid to him, besides help needed in social matters and dealings. This gesture by the petitioner had led to a strong bonding between him and Balraj Khurana.