MUNNA LAI Vs. R C E O MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHITLA Prasad Srivastava, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23-11-1994 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, hereinafter referred to as R. C. E. O. only. The judgment of the R. C. E. O. has been filed as Annexure 21 to the writ petition. The second relief claimed by the petitioner is for issuing mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the pos session of the petitioner.

(2.) THE relevant facts for the purpose of the present writ petition are that the dispute arose in respect of shop Nos. 1, 2 and 5 situated in Mohalla Goverdhan Dar-waza, Brindaban. THE petitioner was oc cupying these shops as a tenant. Landlord Mool Kishore Goswami filed three ap plications separately in respect of each shop under Sections 12/16 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter, referred to as the Act only. In these applications it were mentioned that provisions of the Act are applicable and the petitioner is an un authorised occupant as he is living without any order of allotment. THErefore, legally the shops are vacant. It was also stated that the son of the landlord is unemployed, therefore, he wants to establish his son in theshopno. 1.

(3.) THE R. C. E. O. has considered the statements of the witnesses and held that since the petitioner himself deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act in the court of Munsif, Mathura which is ad mitted to him, therefore, the provisions of Rent Control Act were applicable to the building in question and as there was no allotment in his favour the tenancy will be illegal under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act and it would be deemed to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. He accordingly declared the vacancy by order dated 23-11-1994. THE petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition.