VEER SINGH Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present petition was originally filed by the tenant/occupant challenging the order of vacancy dated 27th March, 2002, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur. Subsequently by means of amendment the order dated 1st May, 2002 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the premises in dispute in favour of landlord under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was also challenged.

(2.) Dispute relates to a Shop No. 119 (old) 257 (new ) Darshan Purwa, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner, alleges to be a tenant of the said shop since 1970 and alleges to be carrying on business of Parchoon of general merchandise. The original landlord of the shop in dispute was Durga Prasad. By means of sale deed dated 13th November, 2000 the shop in dispute was sold to Smt. Jyoti Gupta, (respondent No. 2). On an application filed by one R.K. Verma (respondent No. 3) seeking allotment of the shop in dispute the present proceedings were initiated. Report was called for from the Inspector who submitted a report dated 20th December, 2000 stating that the petitioner, was the tenant since 1970 and had been regularly paying the rent to the landlord Durga Prasad. The report further mentioned that even landlord Durga Prasad stated that petitioner was in possession since 1970. On receipt of the report of the Inspector, notices were issued to the landlord and the petitioner from the Court of Rent Court and Eviction Officer. Both the parties contested the question of vacancy. Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the material evidence on record and the contention of rival parties came to the conclusion that the occupation of the petitioner, could not be said to from 1970 and with effect from the 1st, February, 1982 pursuant to the agreement dated 29th January, 1982 between the petitioner, Veer Singh and the landlord Durga Prasad. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer accordingly vide judgment dated 27th March, 2002 held that there was vacancy in shop in dispute and it was open for allotment/release under Section 16 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Km. Rama Goel learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 2.