R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.
(2.) 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 31.10.1998 passed by respondent No. 1, declaring the building in question as vacant.
(3.) The dispute relates to building No. 86/382, Deo Nagar, Kanpur of which one Sri Jagdamba Prasad Awasthi was the original landlord. The said building was in the tenancy of Mr. Suraj Prasad alias Chhedi. The petitioner was permitted to reside in the building in question in 1955 by Sri Suraj Prasad alias Chhedi, the chief tenant. On receipt of the application for allotment of the said building, proceedings under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (for short, 'the Act') were initiated. On the directions issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the building in question was inspected by the Rent Control Inspector. He, thereafter, submitted his report to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the copy of which is contained as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Rent Control Inspector, by his report dated 29.5.1998, reported that the building in question was in occupation of the petitioner who was not a member of the family of the tenant. On the basis of the said report, the notices were issued to the concerned parties. The petitioner filed his objection in the said proceedings to the effect that he happened to be the real brother of the deceased tenant. He has been living in the building in question for the last 17 years and normally resided in the same at the time of the death of the tenant. He, therefore, being the heir of the deceased tenant, inherited the tenancy right and was entitled to continue in occupation of the said building. His occupation of the building in question was quite legal, therefore, it cannot be said to be vacant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the report of the Rent Control Inspector and stated that the petitioner although was the real brother of the deceased but was not his family member. They contended that he was inducted in the house in 1978, therefore. In view of the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, the building in question shall be deemed to be vacant. Parties thereafter, produced evidence in support of their cases, oral and documentary. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after going through the entire material on the record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was inducted in the building in question by the tenant Shri Suraj Prasad alias Chhedi in the year 1978. Petitioner was not a family member of the deceased tenant, therefore, the building in question shall be deemed to be vacant in view of the provisions of Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act, that after the death of the tenant, possession of the petitioner cannot be legalised and declared the building in question as vacant by the impugned order dated 31.10.1998. Challenging the validity of the said order, the present petition has been filed.;