KASHI RAM KANHAIYA LAL Vs. ADDL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies)/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, whereunder the premises in dispute has been declared to be vacant in the proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the petitioner has now approached this Court for redress seeking quashing of the said order. The facts of the case, shorn of details, and necessary for the disposal of this petition, lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a partnership concern with several partners. These partners were utilizing the premises in dispute for business purposes since before the enforcement of the Act. Under the Articles of- partnership dated 2-6-67 the petitioner firm had six partners only. It appears that with effect from 1-4-79 a new partnership was constituted to run a business in the name and style of M/s. Gani Trading Company. The instrument of partnership in this connection was executed on 12-4-79. This newly constituted partnership consisted of seven partners out of whom three were the persons who were partners in the petitioner firm, three were wives of the other three partners of this firm and one was a person who was an outsider in the sense that he did not belong to the family of the partners of the petitioner firm as contemplated in the definition of "Family" contained in Section 3(g) of the Act.

(2.) It is not disputed that the aforesaid newly constituted partnership firm was allowed to occupy the premises in dispute and actually carried on business therein. As a matter of fact, the newly constituted firm was described by the partners of the petitioner firm as its "sister concern" and utilization' of the premises in dispute by this "sister concern" stands admitted to the petitioner at least till 21-5-86 as is apparent from the statement of Gopi Krishna, one of the partners of the petitioner firm which is on the record. The case of the contesting respondent is, however, that in reality the aforesaid' newly constituted firm is still continuing to be in occupation of the premises in dispute.

(3.) It further appears that in the aforesaid circumstances, initially an application seeking allotment of the premises in dispute was filed on 20-8-87 on the assertion that the premises in dispute will be deemed to have become vacant under Section 12 read with Section 25 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such was available for allotment. On the basis of this application the respondent No. 1 appears to have taken the necessary steps for the ascertainment of vacancy and obtained the report of the Rent Control Inspector which is dated 31-8-87. These proceedings ultimately culminated in the order dated 2-9-87 passed by the respondent No. 1 hereunder , holding that prima facie , there was no vacancy the case was consigned to the record room with a cryptic one word "File";