LAXMI NARAYAN Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. In spite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.1.1987 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh declaring vacancy of shop in dispute. The said order was passed in case No. 65 of 1985 Rakesh Kumar v. Laxmi Narayan. The vacancy has been declared only on the ground that at the time of inspection by R.C.I. shop was closed. The landlord-petitioner filed an objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and contended that the shop had been released in his favour through order of the High Court passed under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. This version was not specifically disbelieved by R.C. and E.O. The case of the landlord was that his son was doing business from the shop in dispute. If the shop was closed, it was not possible for R.C.I. to observe as to whether there were any goods inside the shop or not. He only said that he peeped through the door from under. This is not satisfactory way of reporting about position of a shop. Moreover mandatory notice before inspection was not given to landlord as required by Rule 8 (2). If notice had been given, landlord would have opened the shop for inspection.

(3.) Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Vacancy has been declared without any findings in respect of any of the grounds on which legally vacancy can be declared. The writ petition is therefore allowed and impugned order is set aside. Petition Allowed.