VIJAY PRAKASH TELANG Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of the orders dated 10.10.1986 and 18.12.1986 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises in question. This premises was in the possession of Sri Vinod Kumar. The petitioner moved an application for release of the shop under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need for his son. The prescribed authority allowed the application holding that the need of the petitioner was bona fide and genuine and released the premises in question by an order dated 5.8.1985. Subsequently, the petitioner was given possession of the shop in question by the tenant. The petitioner thereafter, carried out extensive repairs in the premises in question. Consequently, the shop remained locked and could not be used for business purpose.

(2.) It transpires that on the basis of an application of a prospective allottee the inspector submitted an ex parte report dated 4.2.1986 stating therein that the shop was found locked and that the shop had been released in favour of the landlord, but the same was not being used for , business purposes. The inspector recommended that a notice may be issued to the landlord to indicate as to whether he would be using the shop for his own purposes or would be Interested in letting out the shop. Consequently, notices were issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the landlord appeared and filed his objections stating therein that the shop had been released for the need of settling his son in the business and that the shop was required for that purpose. The petitioner further contended that since the shop required extensive repairs, the same was being carried out and after completion of the repairs, the petitioner's son will start the business. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 10.10.1986 directed the petitioner not to make any alteration or repairs in the premises in question and subsequently, by an order dated 18.12.1986 declared the vacancy in the shop in question on the sole ground that the shop was not being used by the landlord.

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.