Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order whereby the disputed accommodation has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 4.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Uma Dutta Pandey, father of petitioner, was tenant of the first floor portion of House No. 112/364-C, Swamp Nagar, Kanpur, of which Smt. Krishna Devi. respondent No. 3, is the land-lady. He was transferred from Kanpur to Lucknow in the year 1971. In the year 1976, an application for allotment was filed by respondent No. 4 on the ground that as father of the petitioner had been transferred from Kanpur, the disputed accommodation should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted the report, stating that Uma Dutta Pandey, father of the petitioner, was transferred from Kanpur in the year 1971, and, on that ground, disputed accommodation be declared as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on this report declared the accommodation in question as vacant by his order dated 30.5.1977. An objection on behalf of Uma Dutta Pandey, father of the petitioner, was filed stating that he had never vacated the accommodation. His eldest son, Rakesh Dutta Pandey, the petitioner, was residing in the disputed accommodation and he was working as a lecturer in Economics in a postgraduate college in Kanpur. The landlady submitted a reply and contended that as Uma Dutt Pandey was transferred from Kanpur. it should be deemed as vacant under Section 12 (3A) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that as the eldest son of the tenant, viz., the petitioner, was residing in the house, the accommodation it could not be treated as vacant, and recalled the order declaring vacancy passed on 6.1.1977. The application filed by the landlady for release of the disputed accommodation was thereafter rejected on 1.7.1977.
(3.) Respondent No. 3 filed revision against the said order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The revislonal court allowed the revision and the case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground that the objection was filed by the petitioner, as the son of the tenant and independently he had no right to file objection and a son of the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on rema'nd of the case, passed order on 16.12.1978 declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant. The release application filed by respondent No. 3 was, however, rejected on the ground that she did not require the disputed accommodation bona fide. The petitioner, on coming to know of the order dated 16.12.1978, filed application to recall the said order. This application was allowed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 16.8.1979, holding that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. Respondent No. 4 filed revision against this order. The revislonal court allowed the revision on 10.8.1981 taking the view that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, thereafter, allotted it to respondent No. 4 by his order dated 6.2.1984. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision by the impugned order dated 17.5.1984.;