- (1.) SUDHIR. Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 6-1-2000 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereby he has declared the disputed accommodation as vacant.
(2.) BRIEFLY, stated the facts, arc that one Ram Swarup was a tenant of the dis puted accommodation. He died on 18-8-1998. The landlord intimated the vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 15 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) staling that Ram Swamp having died and there being no successor under law residing in the premises in question at the time of his death, it shall be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control inspector to submit the report. The Inspector sub mitted a report. The petitioner filed objec tion stating that Ram Swarup died without leaving any issue. He was his real brother's son and inherited his tenancy and he was in its possession. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. He is also not a member of the family of the deceased Ram Swamp and declared the accommodation in question as vacant vide the impugned order dated 6-1-2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent made a statement that he does not propose to file any counter- affidavit and the writ petition be disposed of on merits.
(3.) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioner is not a family member of the deceased tenant and, therefore, he is not entitled to continue in possession, the definition of "family" has been given under Section 3 (g) of the Act. THE petitioner is not living with his family members as tenant under Section 3 (g) of the Act. His contention was that he shall be deemed as tenant under Section 3 (a) of the Act which defines a "tenant" as in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death- in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death. THE petitioner was claiming that he is an heir as he is the son of real brother of the deceased tenant and there was no other heir in preference to him. It was further stated that he was residing in it. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not con sidered this aspect of the matter. He only took the view that as the petitioner is not a family member, he cannot be treated as a tenant without considering the provisions of clause (a) to Section 3 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was, in fact, not residing in the premises in question. This also involves question of fact and specific finding is required on this aspect.;