Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.1990 rejecting the application for review filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that father of Raj Nath was owner of the property in question. His father died leaving behind Raj Nath, Kedar Nath and one sister. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Raj Nath and the owner of the property in dispute. Smt. Malti Devi, respondent No. 2, claims to have purchased the disputed property by a registered sale -deed on 24.2.1987 from Pyare Lal, sister's son of Raj Nath. She, after obtaining the sale -deed, filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control Inspector submitted report that one Smt. Rama Devi and Smt. Geeta Devi were in possession without an allotment order. They have not opened the door of the house. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared it vacant and passed an order of release in favour of Smt. Malti Devi, respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed an application for review of the said order under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, with the allegations that they are residing in the disputed house as owner of the property. The disputed accommodation was illegally declared as vacant on the supposition that some unauthorised persons were residing in the disputed premises. This review application has been rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order dated 7.12.1989.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. An accommodation can be declared as vacant only when the tenant or the landlord has vacated it or they are likely to vacate the same. There may be circumstances when an accommodation may be deemed to be vacant as under Section 12 of the Act. The Rent Control Inspector had submitted the report that one Rama Devi and Anita Devi were residing in the accommodation in dispute. He contacted them but they did not meet him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on this report declared it as vacant. The petitioners were not given a notice nor they were heard. The disputed accommodation was, thereafter, allotted to respondent No. 2.
(3.) THE petitioners have remedy to file an application to review the order on the ground that they were occupying the disputed accommodation in their own right. They were not unauthorised occupant.;