- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 22-5-2000 whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner against the order of vacancy and declared the building in question as vacant. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the house No. 86/28, Raipurwa, Kanpur Nagar was initially occupied by Shiv Ram Gupta as a tenant who has died on 16-10-1992. Thereafter the house was occupied by Jhabboo Lal father of the petitioner and on his death petitioner came in occupation of the same. On the receipt of the applica tion for allotment proceedings for declara tion of the vacancy were initiated. The house in question was got inspected through the Rent Control Inspector who submitted report to the effect that the petitioner was occupying the house in dis pute illegally. On the basis of the said report notices were issued to the con cerned parties. Petitioner filed his objec tion contending that he was in occupation of the house in dispute in accordance with law. Here it may be noted that even during the lifetime of Shiv Ram Gupta the build ing in question was declared vacant. Chal lenging the validity of the order of vacancy Shiv Ram Gupta filed Writ Petition No. 5487 of 1983 which was ultimately dis missed by this Court. The petitioner in support of his case produced evidence. The respondent No. 2 after perusing the material on record rejected the objection filed by the petitioner and declared the house as vacant by order dated 22-5-2000, hence the present petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a lawful occupant of building in question which was never vacated by him. The respondent No. 2 acting in excess of his jurisdiction declared the building in question as vacant. On the other hand learned Coun sel appearing for the respondent No. 1 contended that petitioner was an un authorised occupant of the building in ques tion and that the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 2 is concluded by findings of fact which cannot be challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 6. 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly Keshavrai was the tenant of the building in question, even during his lifetime building in question was declared vacant. The validity of the order of vacancy was challenged by Keshav Rai before this Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed. After the death of Keshav Rai, according to the findings recorded by the respondent No. 1 the father of the petitioner came into occupation illegally of the building in question after the death of his father, petitioner is occupying the building in the same capacity. 7. The petitioner admittedly has got no allotment order in his favour. The oc cupation of the petitioner is in violation of provisions of Sections 11 and 13 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" ). The respondent No. 1 has taken into con sideration the whole evidence on the record and thereafter recorded clear categorical finding to the effect that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant. The finding recorded by the respondent No. 2 is based on the relevant evidence on record. No case for interference under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the petitioner may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the building in question as at Kanpur Nagar it is very difficult to search out and arrange a residential accommodation. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has got no objection if petitioner is granted four months time to vacate the building in question subject to the condition that he furnishes an under taking in writing before the respondent No. 2 that he will vacate the building in question immediately on expiry of four months and will pay rent for the period he remains in occupation. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts the petitioner is granted four months' time to vacate the building in question, subject to the condition he furnishes an undertaking within three weeks from today before the respondent No. 2 that he will vacate the building immediately on expiry of the aforesaid time and hand over vacant pos session to respondent No. 1 and will pay the rent of the building for the period he remains in occupation of the building in question, failing which. respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law to eject the petitioner. 10. With there observations and directions this petition stands finally dis posed of. Petition disposed of. .;