SALIG RAM Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition directed against the dated 4-12-1985 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/A.C.M.II, Kanpur in case No. 144 of 1985 declaring the vacancy of the accommodation in dispute. Accommodation in dispute is a Chabutara having tin shed over it. Landlord- respondent No. 2 has filed his own counter affidavit in this writ petition and in para 4 thereof it has been stated that :

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Shyamji Dubey is the Receiver of the Trust Pancham Gadaria to which property in dispute belongs. Rent Control Inspector in its report dated 30-9-1995 reported that property in dispute was a small Chabutara having a tin shed and that there was no door etc. in the said property. Rent Control and Eviction Officer only and only on the basis of the report of Rent Control Inspector held that the property in dispute was building as defined under Section 3(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and it was vacant as it was in occupation of unauthorized occupant. Petitioner had specifically raised objection before the Rent Control and Eviction officer of the effect that property in dispute was not building as defined under the Act, hence, the Act was not applicable thereupon and the building in dispute could neither be declared vacant nor allotted to any one.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , I hold that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the property in dispute. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction officer is utterly without jurisdiction.