R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.5.2000 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby building in question was declared as vacant. A prayer for writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 not to evict the petitioner from the building in question i.e. No. 86/275-A, Afim Kothi, Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as 'building in question', has also been made.
(2.) Building in question was in the tenancy of late Ram Gopal. The proceedings under Section 16 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") were initiated on the basis of intimation of vacancy given by Smt. Naina Saluja owner of the building in question. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to make local inspection and submit the report. The Rent Control Inspector after making local inspection submitted the report to the effect that initially the building in question was under the tenancy of late Ram Gopal. On his death, Ram Gopal left behind his two sons, namely, Lal Singh and Shiv Dayal. It was stated that Shiv Dayal has acquired another residence in the area of Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur and shifted with his family to the said accommodation. Thereafter Lal Singh who was in Government Service was also transferred to some other place. Thus in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the building in question was deemed vacant. On the receipt of the report of Inspector notices were issued to the concerned parties. Petitioner filed his objection against the said report claiming that he continued to occupy the said building as the heir of Ram Gopal. He never vacated the said building, therefore, there was no vacancy in it. The report of the Rent Control Inspector, to the contrary, was, therefore, liable to be rejected. In support of their cases parties produced evidence, by means of affidavits.The Rent Control & Eviction Officer after perusing the material on record came to the conclusion that the building in question was legally vacant, therefore, by order dated 12.6.2000 he has declared the same as vacant, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner inherited the tenancy on the death of his father, thereafter, he never vacated the building in question and was continuously in occupation of the same, therefore, there was no question of the said building being actually vacant or deemed vacant. The impugned order of declaring the vacancy is, therefore, liable to be quashed.;