PURSHOTTAM DAS Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Purshottam Das, filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar dated 9th October, 2003, whereby a vacancy has been declared in the accommodation in dispute Under Section 12 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with regard to two rooms set on the first floor of House No. 110/194, Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) The landlord filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 29th July, 2003 to the effect that one Shobh Raj was tenant of the accommodation in dispute on the monthly rent of Rs. 85 of which applicants Virendra Kumar, Narendra Kumar and Raj Kumar are the owners and landlords. Sri Shobh Raj died and the tenancy was inherited by his widow, Smt. Krishna Devi, who also died on 4.1.2003. It was also stated in the said application that Krishna Devi, deceased, entered into agreement with the erstwhile owner Rajesh Chandra Saxena on 14.3.2000 to the effect that Krishna Devi surrenders tenancy with the condition that so long she is alive or till any member of her family purchases another house in this city, she will have a right to live in the accommodation in dispute. It is also stated that at the time of death of Krishna Devi neither Krishna Devi nor any of her heirs were residing in the accommodation in dispute. The accommodation was occupied by some unauthorized occupant. It was also staled that the son of Krishna Devi, Naresh Kumar, has got a vacant house No. A/202 in Mohalla Gujaini, Kanpur Nagar which is within the same municipality. In terms of agreement entered into by Krishna Devi the accommodation in question is vacant. It was, therefore, prayed in the aforesaid application by the landlord that the landlord requires the accommodation in question for his personal occupation, therefore, the accommodation be released in favour of the landlord. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to inspect the accommodation in question. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 7th August, 2003. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after perusing the aforesaid report, issued notice to Naresh Kumar son of Shobh Raj whose lock was found to be on the accommodation in question at the time of inspection by the Rent Control Inspector. The aforesaid notice issued to Naresh Kumar was served on Naresh Kumar who after going through the notice refused to accept the same and told the process server that he will appear in the Court. Sri Naresh Kumar in spite of promise did not appear before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and therefore again notice was sent by registered post on the address of Gujaini house and also on the address of the accommodation in dispute. In spite of notice Naresh Kumar has chosen not to appear. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, therefore, found that after the death of Krishna Devi nobody is in fact residing in the accommodation in dispute and Naresh Kumar has also obtained a house in Mohalla Gujaini and thus there is vacancy and declared the vacancy vide order dated 9th October, 2003.

(3.) The petitioner, Purshottam, filed an application for review of the order dated 9th October, 2003, Under Section 16 (5) of the Act which application according to material on the record has been dismissed during pendency of the present writ petition but he chose to amend only a relief claimed in this writ petition and did not annex the order by which the review application has been dismissed nor challenged the same.