R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 31.5.2000 whereby building in question i.e. house No. 56/68, Satranji Mohal, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred as the building in dispute) declared vacant by the respondent No. 1, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) It appears that Smt. Asha Devi Awasthi made an application before respondent No. 1 for allotment of the building in question. On the basis of which the proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. XIII fo 1972, in short, "the Act", were initiated. The Rent Control Inspector was asked to submit the report after making the local inspection. The Rent Control Inspector after following the procedure under the law made local inspection and submitted his report to the effect that the tenant has removed house-hold effects from the budding in question and locked the same. On the basis of the said report, notices were issued to the parties concerned. The petitioners through Kamla Devi filed an objection that the petitioners were in possession for the last 30 years of the building in question and that the same was never vacated. It was also pleaded that the building in question was used for business purpose and not for residential purposes. The parties thereafter produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their case. The respondent No. 1 after going through the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the building in question was a residential building and the tenant has removed the house-hold effects from the same and has shifted the some other building. Having recorded the said finding he declared building in question as vacant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, hence the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the respondent No. 1 are perverse. It was also urged that the building in question was not a residential building but it was a business premises, the view taken to the contrary by the respondent No. 1 was illegal.;