- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 26-9-1988 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, arc that respon dents 2 and 3 purchased the building in dispute by registered sale- deed dated 4-12-1997. THE father of the petitioner Sardar Rachpal Singh was one of the tenants in the building in question and thereafter his son, the petitioner, inherited the tenancy. On 3-7-1998 respondents 2 and 3 intimated vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises but he had locked the house and removed his effects from it and, therefore, the disputed accommodation should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer asked the Rent Control Inspector to submit the report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted the report that he inspected the premises but found it locked. He reported that the parties may be heard for deciding the question in controversy. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer sent notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed objection alleging that he had not vacated the disputed accommoda tion. The accommodation in question was let out for business purpose of Tent manufacturing in the name of M/s Rajendra and Brothers and he is still carry ing on business of Tent manufacturing. He denied that the effects have been removed from the disputed premises. One of the pleas was that Respondents 2 and 3 have purchased the property from its previous owner. The sale-deed was void as it was obtained without any permission having been granted by the Ceiling Authority under the U. P. Urban Ceiling on Land Holdings Act and they cannot be treated as landlords in respect of the disputed premises.
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Of ficer declared the accommodation in ques tion as vacant by order dated 26-9-1998 on the ground that the disputed premises was for residential purpose and the petitioner is residing in another House No. 63/7 THE Mall, Kanpur. This order has been chal lenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Shri L. N. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondents.;