MADAN GOPAL MAHESHWARI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's writ petition against the orders dated 12.4.1994, 18.7.1995 and 2.8.1995 declaring vacancy and releasing the premises in favour of the landlord respondent Nos. 3 and 4. We are concerned with only that part of judgment, which relates to the declaration of vacancy. In the event that order falls, the release order will automatically go and in case that order is upheld, no objection against the release can be taken by the petitioner. FACTS

(2.) The premises in dispute is a residential premises in which Madan Gopal Maheshwari (the tenant for short) was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 85 per month. He has got eight sons and two daughters. According to him, his two sons and two widowed daughters arc residing with him. The present proceeding started on the application filed by the landlord on 29.5.1994. According to the landlord. Mad an Gopal Maheshwari along with his five sons have constructed the house Nos. 1098 and 1099 Bert Pada Lal Darwaja. Mathura and as such, the premises in dispute has become vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer (respondent No. 2) got it inspected. The Inspector submitted his report on 11.4.1995. This was behind the back of the tenant. The respondent No. 2 declared it vacant by his order dated 12.4.1994. The tenant filed an objection. Respondent No. 2 considered the evidence on record and by his order dated 18.7.1995 has held that( i) Madan Gopal Maheshwari along with his sons have constructed the house at 1098 and 1099 Beri Pada Lal Darwaja. Mathura and is residing therein. (ii) In any case his sons at least have constructed the house. They are members of his family. (iii) The premises in dispute has fallen vacant under Section 12 (3) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short). Accordingly respondent No. 2 dismissed the objection filed by Madan Gopal Maheshwari and released the premises on the bona fide need of the landlord. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. This was dismissed on 2.8.1995 as non maintainable.

(3.) Madan Gopal Maheshwari died during the pendency of present writ petition and in his place, all his heirs have been impleaded as petitioners. It is admitted by the counsel of the petitioner that out of his heirs, only two sons and two widowed daughters were living with him in the premises in dispute. It is residential accommodation. It is only they who will be entitled to prosecute the case. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION