R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 10.8.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 declaring the house in dispute as vacant.
(2.) IT appears that in the proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, the petitioner filed an objection stating that she was the owner of the house in dispute and previously her father -in -law, Kishori Singh, was in possession of the said building and after his death, she was continuing in possession thereof. The respondent No. 1 has no right to declare the same as vacant. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3 contended that the possession of the petitioner was that of an unauthorized occupant. She was neither the owner nor lawful occupant of the building. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notice to the concerned parties and also directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit his report. After perusing the material on record the building in question was declared vacant by the respondent No. 1 by the impugned order. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the respondent No. 1 has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence on record and erred in law in holding that possession of the petitioner was that of an unauthorised occupant and that actually there was no vacancy as the building was lawfully occupied by the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the finding record by the authority below is a finding of fact which is based on relevant evidence. It was contended that there was not an iota of evidence on record to show that the petitioner was the owner of the house in dispute. It was also urged that the house over which the ownership was claimed by the petitioner, was situated one furlong away from the building in question and the findings recorded by the respondent No. 1 are all findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not the owner of the house in dispute. She was simply an unauthorised occupant. It has been held that the building No. 120/230, Narainpurwa over which the ownership was claimed by the petitioner, was a different building situated in other locality. The number of the building in question is 120/192/37, Lajpat Nagar. In respect of the said buildings, there was not an iota of evidence in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the: documents produced by the petitioner related to building No. 120/230, Narainpurwa, therefore, they were irrelevant for the purposes of the case. The findings of fact recorded by the authority below are the findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. It is, however, observed that in case the petitioner feels that justice has not been done to her, she is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for declaration of her rights in the building in question. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.;