ROSHAN SINGH Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 16th April, 1990, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Jhansi, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby a deemed vacancy has been declared under Section 12 (3A) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and thereafter the accommodation in question has been released in favour of the landlord-contesting respondent.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that petitioner Roshan Singh, who was employed in Railway Protection Force, was posted at Jhansi and the accommodation in dispute was occupied by him. It is not disputed that the accommodation in question is covered by the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the 'Act'). It is also not disputed that petitioner Roshan Singh has been transferred from Jhansi to Gwalior, as is clear from the report of the Rent Control Inspector, which says that the petitioner has been transferred approximately two years ago. The report also says that the family of the petitioner is still living in the accommodation in dispute and the petitioner keeps visiting there. The report also reveals that from Gwalior, petitioner has been transferred to some other place.