RAJ KISHORE MISHRA Vs. ADDL CITY MAGISTRATE IIIRD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 28-7-1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, respon dent No. 1 whereby he declared the vacan cy in respect of shop No. 35 situate on the ground floor in house No. 126/196 in Mohalla Juhi Hamirpur Road, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that father of the petitioner was tenant of the shop in question. After death of his father he in herited the tenancy. In the year 1985, he formed a society known as Krishna Vidya Mandir. This society started running a primary school. THE teachers were employed by the society. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for allotment of the disputed accommodation on the allega tion that it has been sublet and school is being run in the premises in question and it is declared as vacant. Notices were issued to the landlord- respondent No. 2. He also pleaded that the accommodation in ques tion should be treated as vacant. THE petitioner filed objection and denied that he has vacated the accommodation in question. THE Rent Control Inspector sub mitted a report on 28-8- 1995 that the premises in question was locked. THE petitioner filed objection and again Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises in question on 22-12-1996 and submitted a report that the petitioner was earlier carry ing on cloth business. Later on he started running a school and produced the relevant certificates of Krishna Vidya Mandir. He took the statement of the petitioner that he was carrying on different business on different times. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer gave notice to the landlord- respondent No. 2 and also heard the petitioner and respondent No. 3. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner had given the possession of this premises in question to Krishna Vidya Mandir Society and such society shall be treated as different person and, therefore, the ac commodation in question shall be treated as vacant. THE petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE next submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that later on coaching of the students was being done under the name of Krishna Coaching Or ganisation which is not a registered society. He has placed reliance on a pamphlet (Annexure-5) which states that coaching will be done between the period 7 to 10 a. m. and 4 to 8 p. m. and the address given is 'krishna Vidya Mandir, 127/196, Juhi Hamirpur Road, Kanpur'. This indi cates that Krishna Vidya Mandir con tinues and in addition to it coaching was also being done in that premises. Further, this pamphlet does not indicate the date of issuance of such pamphlet. Even assuming that later on the petitioner did not permit the society to run the school still once the petitioner having permitted the society to run the school, the provision of Section 12 (b) of the Act is attracted.