VIJAY KUMAR Vs. DISTT SUPPLY OFFICER/DELEGATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Respondents 2 and 3, Anil Agrawal and Shrimati Poonam Agrawal, are the landlords, respondent No. 5 filed an allotment application under Section 16 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before rent control and Eviction Officer alleging therein that Baldev Mitra, respondent No. 4, who was the tenant had constructed his own house and had shifted his residence there, hence the house in dispute was vacant. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/district Supply Officer, Meerut, before whom the case was registered as case No. 41 of 2001 Sanjay Gupta v. Anil Agarwal, through order dated 29-9-2005 declared the house in dispute to be vacant under Section 12 (3) of the Act. Tenant Vijay Kumar, who is son of Baldev Mitra, has filed the instant writ petition, challenging the order of declaration of vacancy.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the house in dispute was given on rent to his father Baldev Mitra, petitioner was also major and hence he also became tenant. Firstly, this proposition cannot be accepted. If the tenant at the time of taking the house on rent had got some major sons they do not become ipso facto tenant and secondly, even if it is assumed that the tenancy was joint and petitioner and his father were joint tenants, still no difference will be made as even in the case of joint tenants, acquisition of another house by one of the joint tenant causes vacancy of the entire house. Contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court in the Authority reported in Mohd Azim v. District Judge, (AIR 1985 SC 1118 ). However, the said authority was over-ruled by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. A. D. M. , (1996 (2) JCLR 252 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 676 ).

(3.) IN view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence it is dismissed.