USHA DEVI Vs. XTH A D J KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 24-5-1988 rejecting the release applica tion filed by the landlord-petitioners on the ground that the disputed shop is not vacant and also against the order of the revisional Court dated 16-8-1990 dismiss ing the revision filed against the said order.

(2.) THE version of the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 3 Odu Chand was the tenant of the disputed shop. He was carry ing on the business in the said shop in the name of M/s. Prince Electric under his sole proprietorship He left the shop in ques tion and passed its possession to one Girdhari Lal, Respondent No. 4. One Vijay Kumar filed an application for the allotment of the disputed shop. THE petitioner also filed application for the release of the disputed shop. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. THE Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 20-5- 1985 indicating that Odu Chand, Respondent No. 3, was tenant. He was informed that he has left to Bombay and Girdhari Lal, Respondent No. 4 is in possession of the disputed shop. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notice to Odu Chand and Girdhari Lal Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Girdhari Lal, Respondent No. 4, filed ob jection stating therein that Odu Chand, Respondent No. 3, is his brother. He never vacated the shop in dispute. THE business was being carried on in the name of other firm M/s. New Prince Electric Trading Co. , which is a registered firm. THE Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer took the view that even if Girdhari Lal, Respondent No. 4, was carrying on business in the disputed shop. THE accommodation shall not be treated as vacant. THE petitioners filed a revision, which has been dismissed by the Respondent No. 1 on 16-8-1990.

(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not taken into account the provisions of Section 12 (l) (b) of U. P. urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 which provides that a landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. He has also not taken into account the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act that in the case of a non- residential building, where a tenant carry ing on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building.