R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Singh, Advocate, who appeared for the respondent and also perused the record. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6.11.2000 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional City Magistrate -III, Kanpur Nagar declaring the building in question i.e. 86, Rail Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, as vacant.
(2.) IT appears that the proceedings were initiated by respondent No. 2 on an application filed under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 for short 'the Act'. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on receipt of the application directed the Rent Control Inspector to make a local inspection and submit a report. In compliance of the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the Rent Control Inspector made a local inspection and submitted a report. The petitioner has filed objection against the aforesaid report as well as in the case claiming that Kamlesh and Umesh, his sons, were not residing normally with him and that he was in occupation of the building in question, therefore, there was no question of declaring the said building as vacant. The parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after perusing the evidence on record, recorded finding that Kamlesh and Umesh, sons of the petitioner, acquired two houses in Tulsi Nagar. In view of sub -section (3) of Section 12 of the Act the petitioner. Therefore, shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the said building. Having recorded the said finding the building in question was declared vacant. Hence the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the construction of the houses of his sons at Tulsi Nagar was of no consequence inasmuch as they were not normally residing with him and were not dependent upon him. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the validity of the order. It was urged that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer recorded a clear and categorical finding that the sons of the petitioner acquired two houses at Tulsi Nagar, Kanpur, therefore, the building in question shall be deemed to be vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in declaring the said building as vacant.
(3.) I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after going through the entire evidence on record including the report of Rent Control Inspector, came to the conclusion that the two sons of the petitioner, who were normally residing with him in the building in question and who were dependent upon him, acquired/constructed two houses in Tulsi Nagar, therefore, in view of sub -section (3) of Section 12 of the Act the building in question shall be deemed to be vacant. The said finding is a finding of fact and is based on the relevant evidence available on record. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It is, however, observed that in case the building in question is either released in favour of landlord or is allotted in favour of any person, the petitioner will have a right to challenge the validity of the said order under Section 18 of the Act. He can raise such objections, which are permissible in law.;