HAZI NASEEM AHMAD Vs. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL SUPPLY VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition arises out of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 16 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The subject matter of the dispute is one shop situate on ground floor of house No. B-16/94, Mohalla Pandey Haveli, Varanasi. Shamim Azaz, the respondent no. 2 herein, filed an application for allotment on July 19, 2006 of the said accommodation. A report was called for from the Rent Control Inspector who submitted its report dated 20th of September, 2006. The respondent Nos. 3 to 8, the landlord, applied for the release of the disputed shop. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The authority concerned by the order dated 15th of March, 2007 declared the accommodation as vacant. Thereafter, an application to review and recall the said order was filed by the present petitioner which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 6. 8. 2007. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the orders dated 6th of August, 2007 and 15th of March, 2007.

(2.) THE main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if it is taken that the possession of the petitioner of the disputed accommodation is unauthorised one, the vacancy cannot be declared at the instance of the applicant for allotment after expiry of period of 12 years from the date of commencement of the unauthorised occupation. He submits that one Feroz was the earlier tenant who vacated it on 1st of September, 1988 and since then, the petitioner is in its occupation though without an allotment order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner according to the own showing of the landlord is an unauthorised occupant since 1st of September, 1988, the proceedings having been initiated in the month of July, 2006 i. e. beyond 12 years, is barred by time. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the impugned order has also found that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the disputed shop since 1st of September, 1988 without there being any allotment order in his favour and as such, there is a deemed vacancy and declared the property in dispute as vacant by the order dated 15th of March, 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the facts as found by the authority concerned, the present proceedings are barred by time. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, submits that in view of section 13 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, if a person is in occupation of a building in question without an allotment or release order, he would be treated as unauthorised occupant. No person is permitted to occupy the accommodation except under an allotment or release order. There being no allotment in favour of the petitioner, the authority concerned, has rightly declared the disputed accommodation as vacant. Reliance was placed by him o a decision of this Court in Shambhu @ Shambhu Dayal Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others: 2007 (1) ARC 810. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE facts of the case are not much in dispute. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed shop w. e. f. September, 1988. The proceedings having been initiated in the year 2006 for declaration of vacancy is barred by period of limitation or not, is the only question mooted herein.