Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.5.1997 whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the disputed accommodation as vacant and, thereafter passed as order on 20.8.1997 releasing the disputed premises in favour of the landlord -respondents and the order of the Revisional Court dated 2.2.2000 dismissing the revision against those orders. The proceedings for declaration of vacancy was taken on the basis of the report of the Rent Control Inspector that Kulwant Rai and Shyam Lal were tenants. The petitioner contested the matter in the said proceedings alleging that the joint family was a tenant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer recorded a finding that Kulwant Rai and Shyam Lal were tenants of the disputed premises. Kulwant Rai died and his daughters were married and were not residing in the disputed premises. As regards Shyam Lal, it was found that he constructed House No. 10/1, P.D. Tandon Marg, Dehradun and shifted there. On this finding the disputed premises was declared as vacant. On the application filed by the landlords, it has been released on 20.8.1997. The petitioner filed revision against this order. The revision too has been dismissed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. Sri Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the disputed property was under the tenancy of joint family and if any of the members of the joint family was residing, the disputed accommodation cannot be treated is vacant. The concept of the joint family is not applicable in respect of the tenancy under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act). The names of tenants, whether joint or as co -tenant have to be disclosed.
(3.) IT is next contended that the Revisional Court wrongly dismissed the revision as not maintainable when the petitioner had challenged the order of release besides the order declaring vacancy. The petitioner was found to be unauthorized occupant. He had no right to file objection against the release application filed by the landlord -respondents. The Revisional Court, in these circumstances, rightly dismissed the revision.;