ASIQUN NABI Vs. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of hearing neither respondent No. 5 allottee nor the landlord who was impleaded on the direction of the Court appeared. Only arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner/tenant were heard. Property in dispute is a small shop situate in Kanpur of which newly impleaded respondent i.e. Shri Radha Madhoji Virajman Mandir, through its Sarvarakar Rameshwar Prasad son of Ram Ratan Gupta resident of 7/188 Swarup Nagar, Kanpur Nagar is landlord. Respondent No. 5 filed an application for allotment on the ground that the previous tenant had sub let the shop in dispute to the petitioner hence it was legally/deemed vacant R.C.I. filed his report on 12.2.1976. Vacancy was declared/notified by two line order by R.C. and EO Kanpur on 1.3.1976. Number of the property in dispute is 102/184 Colonelganj Kanpur. Later on by order dated 2.7.1976 shop in dispute was allotted to respondent No. 5. Thereafter the petitioner filed application for review under section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13/72 on 5.7.1976. R.C. and E.O/A.D.M. (CS) Kanpur by order dated 12.12.1978 rejected the review petition. Thereafter the petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 11/79 against order dated 12.12.1978. IX A.D.J., Kanpur dismissed the revision on 15.11.1980 hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE monthly rent of the shop in dispute is Rs. 250/ - even though learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the said rent was -later on enhanced and at present petitioner is paying Rs. 30/ - per month rent, however, there was no evidence on record in respect of enhancement of rent. Even in the supplementary affidavit sworn on 16.4.2005 and filed on 20.4.2005 when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved no such assertion has been made.

(3.) IN view of the above I am of the view that finding of sub tenancy recorded by the R.C. and E.O. and confirmed by the A.D.J., are based upon inadmissible evidence. In the instant writ petition landlord has not come forward inspite of sufficient service.