MANOJ SINGH Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been heard and disposed of in the open Court today. My reasons for dismissing the writ petition are as follows: Heard Mohammad Saeed, learned Counsel for the petitioners, tenants and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, landlord.

(2.) THE petitioners have assailed the orders dated 23.6.2003 and 7.7.2003 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate in Case No. 7 of 2000 under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the order dated 16.4.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Unnao in Rent Revision No. 55 of 2004.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners No. 2 to 5, belong to the family of original tenant, Sri Manoj Singh, petitioner No. 1 and they were living together. Even after vacating the premises by Sri Manoj Singh, the petitioners being members of the family have right to live as tenants. The petitioner No. 2, Sri Sunil Kumar has alleged that he is real brother of Sri Manoj Singh as such he has right to live in the house as tenant.