ARJUN LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in proceedings under section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (for short the Act), ignoring the material evidence on record, can be maintained, is the short question for determination in this petition filed by the tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner along with his brother Bhimraj was tenant of Shop No. 41 in dispute and respondent no. 3 Smt. Chandra Kala was the landlady. She made an application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to release the shop as the petitioner has sub-let it to Sri P. K. Rastogi (not a party to this petition). A report was obtained from the Rent Control Inspector, which indicated that the back portion of the shop was delapidated. In that there were sign boards one being "Sewa Sadan Clinic" and the other as "Mahavir Mishthan Dhartawala" Prop. Arjun Lal Yogesh Kumar Gupta.

(3.) SRI Ranjit Saxena, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, urged that just the nomenclature of the section, either section 16 or Section 12 would not be material. The substance of the order that the shop would be deemed to have fallen vacant, was the crucial question that has been decided and it was not necessary to refer to each and every piece of document and evidence, and that no ground for interference has been made out.