RAJNI KANT SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.D. Yadav, learned Counsel for the tenant petitioner and Sri V.K. Agarwal, learned Counsel, for the contesting respondent/landlord, who has also filed Vakalatnama on behalf of one of the transferees from landlord.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against vacancy declaration order dated 24.6.1991 passed by R.C. and E.O./S.D.M., Hathras, Aligarh. Unfortunately, the learned S.D.M. in the first line of the order described himself as Prescribed Authority instead of R.C. and E.O. or delegated authority of D.M. However, it is not material at all. The order was passed in case No. 36 of 1990 under Sec. 12/16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Chandralata Vs. Kishori Devi . Through the said order, the accommodation in dispute, which is commercial in nature, was declared vacant. Ultimate finding is that no business was being carried on from the accommodation in dispute, hence it was vacant. Even if this finding is accepted still it cannot lead to vacancy under any of the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner had sublet the premises. In this regard, firstly, vacancy has been declared only and only on the ground that business was not being carried out from the accommodation in dispute. Secondly, the pleas that no business was carried out and accommodation in dispute had been sublet are rather self-contradictory. If the accommodation had been sublet to some other person, then the sub-tenant would have been carrying on the business.

(3.) I am of the opinion that on the findings of fact recorded R.C. and E.O. no vacancy comes into existence under any of the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act.