- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the parties and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 1-11-1989 passed by the District Judge in exercise of power under Section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act allowing the revision filed by the contesting Respondent No. 2 and dismiss ing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. It appears that on an application filed under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act proceedings were initiated. The Rent Con trol Inspector was asked to make local inspection and submit his report, which was submitted. On receipt of the report the notices were issued to the parties con cerned. The petitioners contended that the shop in dispute was in the tenancy of Udit Bhagat, the grand-father of the petitioners. On his death the tenancy rights devolved upon his sons, Ramnath Sonar and Shyam Nath Sonar. On the death of Ramnath, Bishuni Devi became the tenant of the building in question along with Shyam Nath. After the death of Smt. Bishuni Devi, the petitioners continued in occupation therefore, there was no vacancy and the application filed under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act was liable to be dismissed. On the other hand respondent (sic) landlord took the plea that Ramnath was the tenant of the shop in dispute. On his death, (sic) Smt. Bishuni Devi and Bishuni Devi died issuless. Consequently the shop in dispute fell vacant. The parties in sup port of their cases produced evidence oral and documentary. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after going through the evidence on the record, recorded findings on the relevant questions involved in the case in favour of the petitioners. It was held that other members of the family continued in occupation of the shop in dispute, consequently the shop in dispute was not vacant. He has also referred to and relied upon other documents, such as, rent note executed in the year 1948. Having recorded the said findings, the application filed by the Respondent No. 2 was dis missed by the judgment and order dated 16-5-1986. Challenging the validity of the said order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the Respondent No. 2 filed a revision under Section 18 of the Act before the revisional authority. Before the revisional authority, it was contended that the original tenant of the shop in dispute was Ramnath. On his death, the tenancy rights devolved upon Smt. Bishuni Devi who has also died leaving behind no heirs or legal representatives nor any member of the 'family' within the meaning of the term used under the Act survived her. The revisional authority accepted the case as set up by the Respondent No. 2 and cursorily set aside the findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and allowed the revision by means of the impugned order dated 1-11-1989. Hence the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Respondent No. 1 was exercising powers under Section 18 of the Act which were limited. The revisional authority could in terfere with the judgment of the Rent Con trol and Eviction Officer if there was any question of jurisdiction was involved. He had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact nor he had the jurisdiction to re- appraise the evidence. It was also urged that the findings recorded by the revisional authority are not based on any evidence on the record, they are apparent ly erroneous and illegal. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 sup ported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the revisional authority was right in holding that Smt. Bishuni Devi was the tenant in her own right who had died issuless, therefore, the shop in dispute was legally vacant and the revision was thus rightly allowed. The learned Counsel appear ing for the Respondent No. 2 also referred to and relied upon certain documents which according to him were filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Ave considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.;