R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 12.1.2000 whereby the respondent No. 1 has declared the building in question as vacant.
(3.) It appears that on an application filed by the landlord, proceedings under Section 16 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"), were initiated. The Rent Control Inspector was directed to make local inspection and submit a report. The Rent Control Inspector thereafter made inspection and submitted his report. On the basis of the said report, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notices to the parties concerned. Petitioner filed an objection to the effect that the building in question was never vacated by him and that he has never permitted anybody to occupy the building in question. The respondents No. 3 and 4 used to come as casual visitors in the building in question and were never permitted to occupy it, within the meaning of clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Act. The parties have produced evidence in support of their cases. The respondent No. 1, after perusing the material on record, recorded clear and categorical finding that the petitioner has permitted to the respondents No. 3 and 4 to occupy the building, who were not members of his family, and declared the building in question as vacant, hence the present petition.;