JALEEL MASTER Vs. IMTIAZ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shamshad Ali for the respondent.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 6.1.2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment of a Commissioner and the order dated 30.4.2007 by which the disputed premises has been declared vacant un der U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act).

(3.) BE it so, assuming that the petitioner had incorrectly paid stamp duty by changing the nature of the said property and did not get any registration etc. if it was a commercial building, but that by itself would not be determinative of the usage of the premises. It is the consistent case of the petitioner that the said premises was non-residential and in fact the family members were found to be residing in the disputed premises when the Inspector had visited it. The pe titioner rightly had moved an application for appointment of a Commissioner to submit a report with regard to premises No. 288, Meerpur Cantt. but the rea sons given by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for rejecting the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was incorrect as no other reports with regard to the said property were ever submitted in these proceedings.