Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereby the disputed accommodation has been declared as vacant. I have heard Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , Sardari Lal was tenant of the disputed premises. He died leaving behind his son and widow Smt. Shakuntala Kukreja, the petitioner. The landlord -respondents filed an application for release of the disputed premises with the allegations that after the death of Sardari Lal, his heirs shifted to Delhi and the premises should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 20.11.1998 reporting that the son of Sardari Lal has constructed his own house in Delhi and is residing there. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after considering the report of the Inspector, passed the order declaring vacancy on 22.7.1999. Smt. Shakuntala Kukreja, the petitioner, widow of Sardari Lal has filed this petition challenging the order of declaring the vacancy. She had also filed a revision against this order but it has been dismissed holding that it is not maintainable. She has also filed a review application under Section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) which is still pending before the authority concerned.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed this order declaring vacancy without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. She has not shifted to Delhi and is residing in the disputed accommodation. She should have been given an opportunity of hearing and should have ascertained this fact from the petitioner.;