SAILASH CHANDRA GANGULY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10th September, 1997 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, declar ing the vacancy of premises in dispute, and the order dated 16- 2-1998 releasing the premises in dispute and order dated 4-5-1998 passed by the Revisional Court dis missing the revision against the aforesaid order.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the landlord- Respondents 3 and 4 pur chased the premises No. 389-112, Tula Ram Bagh, Allahabad from the previous owner Sri R. V. Dawson. THE landlords filed application for release of the disputed premises under Section 16 (l) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) on the allega tions that the petitioner was given accom modation in question for a period of two months as the petitioner was having dire need of accommodation and he was having close relation to the family of landlords. THE petitioner had not obtained any allot ment order in his favour. Though the ac commodation in question were covered under the provisions of the Act it was alleged that the application was filed under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act on the ground that the landlords required the premises for personal need, viz. , a residen tial purpose as they were residing in small portion of building No. 12, Madhwapur, Allahabad which was owned by one Shri T. K. Ghosh.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accommoda tion in question was wrongly declared as vacant. It was burden of proof on the landlords to establish that the accom modation in question was covered by the Act. As noted above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer permitted the parties to lead the evidence on the question as to whether the house in question was covered by the provisions of the Act. THE landlords submitted the quinquennial assessment for the years 1955-60, 1960-65 and 1989-97, which indicate that the house in ques tion was assessed. It was thus established that the accommodation in question was constructed prior to year 1972. THE petitioner did not lead any evidence con trary to it. THE petitioner was in occupa tion of the accommodation did not lead any evidence contrary to it. THE petitioner was in occupation of the accommodation in question without any allotment. His possession was unauthorised as provided under Section 13 of the Act and also as held by Full Bench of this Court in Nootan Kumar and Others v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Others, 1993 (22) ALR 437.