- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, petitioner prays for is suance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15-7-2000 whereby the Respondent No. 1 has declare the building in question, i. e. 2/275, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur, for short building in question, as vacant.
(2.) IT appears that it was in the year 1992, respondent No. 2 purchased the building in question which was then in occupation of the petitioner who happens to be an Advocate. The petitioner was living in the said building and was also having his office in the same. The respon dent No. 2, thereafter, filed an application on 2-11-1996 under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act for release of the building in ques tion in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer sent for the report of the Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control Inspector, after making local inspection, submitted his report to the effect that the petitioner has removed his household goods from build ing No. 2/275 to another building which was acquired by him, Le. , house No. 2-A/275-A, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur which was admittedly purchased by the petitioner in the year 1990. Petitioner also acquired another building, i. e. ,6 MIG on 30-9-1995 in Indira Nagar, Kanpur. The household goods having been removed from the building in question, the same, in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, fell vacant. On the basis of the said report, notices were issued to the parties con cerned. Petitioner filed his objection against the report of the Rent Control Inspector contending that the said report was based on wrong facts. He, however, stated that although the petitioner has shifted from the said house to the house No. 2-A/275-A, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur but he has never shifted his office from the building in question. It was also urged that the building in question was a business premises which was never vacated by the petitioner, therefore, the same cannot be held or deemed to be vacant. The im pugned order of vacancy is, therefore, li able to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the con testing respondent supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the order was concluded by the findings of fact. The petitioner having shifted to another accommodation and also ac quired one more building, Le. , 6 MIG, Indira Nagar, Kanpur in the same city, therefore, in view of the Section 12 of the Act, the building in question was rightly held vacant. The writ petition has, there fore, got no merit and was liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the par ties and also perused the record.
(3.) IT is not disputed by the petitioner that House No. 2-A/275-A, Nawab Ganj. Kanpur was acquired by him in the year 1990. IT was in the year 1996 that household effects were removed from the building in question and the petitioner started living in the House No. 2-A/275-A, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. IT is also not dis puted that the building in question was acquired for residential purpose, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner ever obtained permission of the landlord to change the nature of the user of the building, i. e. , 2/275, Nawab Ganj, Kan pur from residential to commercial. The authority below, therefore, did not commit any error of law in holding that the build ing in question was vacant in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which provides as follows- "12. Deemed vacancy of building, in cer tain cases- (3) In the case of a residential building, if the tenant or any member of his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets va cated a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy. " The findings recorded by the respondent No. 1 are all findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on the record. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said findings. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India is made out.;