RAJESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the orders under challenge are between the same parties and raises common questions of facts and law, therefore, are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31st May, 2003 whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy under the provisions of Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short 'the Act') and directed for notification of the vacancy in the accommodation in dispute. It is this order which is under challenge in the Writ Petition No. 30464 of 2004. In Writ Petition No. 30797 of 2005 the same petitioner challenges the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the accommodation in dispute in favour of the landlord pursuant to the declaration of vacancy in view of the order challenged in the Writ Petition No. 30464 of 2004 and the order passed by the revisional court whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) Now coming to the order dated 31st May, 2003 the petitioners case is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order challenged in the Writ Petition No. 30464 of 2004 inasmuch as the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the accommodation in dispute. The brief facts are as under: