SARLA DEVI Vs. PUSHPA AGNIHOTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a revision under section 18 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, declaring vacancy of the premises under section 12 (3) of the Act and then releasing the premises in dispute in favour of the landlord under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. This revision was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 15th of May, 2008 which has been impugned in the present petition.

(2.) THE Court has recorded a finding of fact that S. N. Saxena was the tenant of the premises in dispute and after his death, his widow and four sons became the joint tenants. Sri Rajiv Swaroop Saxena who became the joint tenant, subsequently acquired a house in the same city in the year 1997 which became vacant in 2004. The landlord then filed an application that vacancy had occurred under section 12 (3) of the Act as the joint tenant had acquired a house in the same city which fell vacant in the year 2004. After declaring the vacancy, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer released the accommodation in favour of the landlord. These two orders were impugned in the revision which has been dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has placed emphasis upon the explanation contained in section 12 (3) of the Act which provides that the expression "any member of family," in relation to a tenant, shall not include a person who has neither been normally residing with nor is wholly dependent on such tenant. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that Rajiv Swaroop Saxena who had purchased the property in the same city was neither dependent and nor was he normally residing with the tenant.