- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 1-3-1989 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Respondent No. 1 declar ing premises No. 78, New Bairhana, Al lahabad in dispute as vacant.
(2.) AN application was filed by one Deo Narain Chakravarti for allotment al leging that the disputed premises was in occupation of one R. B. Pradhan, Advocate without any allotment order being passed in his favour. On this application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 7-8-1981 stating that R. B. Pradhan was in occupation of the premises since the year 1980 without any allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Of ficer, on the basis of the report, issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the disputed premises be not declared as vacant. The petitioner filed objections stating that he was in occupation of the disputed premises prior to 5-7- 1976. He had entered into an agreement with Sri Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, the previous landlord on 1-1- 1975. The agreement of tenancy was duly signed by Sri Awadhesh Kumar Shukla. He was entitled to regularisation of the tenancy under Sec tion 14 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He filed rent-note and two affidavits of the neigh bouring residents, namely, Shri G. D. Srivastava, Ex-Vice Principal, Govern ment Inter College, Allahabad resident of premises No. 79. New Bairhana, Al lahabad by the side of the petitioner's house under the tenancy and Shri Jai Ram Singh, Head of the Botany Department Kulbhaskar Ashram Degree College, Al lahabad, resident of premises No. 55, New Bairhana Road, residing in front of the petitioner's premises. He stated that the petitioner was living in the disputed premises prior to 5-7-1976. The Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer declared the dis puted accommodation as vacant by order dated 1-3-1989 taking the view that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to show that he was in occupation of the disputed premises prior to 5-7-1976. This order has been challenged in the instant petition. I have heard Sri A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the contesting respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had filed rent note. It bears the signatures of Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, the previous landlord and two affidavits of the respected persons residing adjoining to the house of the petitioner. The rent-note was executed on 1-1-1975. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not consider the said rent-note. Further the affidavits of Sri G. D. Srivastava and Sri Jai Ram Singh were not con sidered. This materially has affected the decision of the Respondent No. 1. In the counter-affidavit, it is not denied that the rent note was filed. The contention of the respondents is that the said document is a forged one. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer should have considered as to whether the rent-note submitted by the petitioner is forged or not. He was to further consider the af fidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner and as the material evidence has been ig nored by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, his order is vitiated in.;