VAIBHAV SINGH Vs. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri A.N. Sinha has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 3.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the accommodation in question, hereinafter referred to as accommodation only, was in the tenancy of Sri R.D. Singh. The petitioner is son of Sri R.D. Singh. The mother of the petitioner got an accommodation constructed somewhere in the same City. Therefore, under the provisions of the Act there is deemed vacancy. An application for allotment was filed by Sri R.K. Tripathi. Application for release was also filed by the landlord. The present petitioner also moved an application under Rule 10(6) proviso (b) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) THE petitioner challenged this order by way of revision. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision on the ground that the application under Rule 10(6) proviso (b) was not maintainable as the petitioner has not said anywhere that he was a separate member of the family of the erstwhile tenant R.D. Singh. The petitioner has challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.