KRISHNA MAURYA Vs. A.C.M II/DELEATED AUTHORITY, KANPUR NAGAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2000-11-200
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 15,2000

Krishna Maurya Appellant
VERSUS
A.C.M Ii/Deleated Authority, Kanpur Nagar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.7.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for declaring the building in question as vacant has seen dismissed by respondent No, 1. Prayer for a direction commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the application for allotment and release after declaring the vacancy in the building in question, has also been made.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner purchased the building in question from his erstwhile owner/landlord, Mr. Lakhan Lal. Thereafter, he applied for declaration of vacancy in the building in question on the ground that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were in occupation of the said building without any order of allotment in their favour, therefore, the building in question is deemed vacant in view of the provisions of Section 12 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 application filed by the petitioner was contested by the respondents No. 2 and 3 who contended that there was no vacancy in the building in question as they were living as tenants since 1973. The application filed by the petitioner, therefore, was liable to be dismissed. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that the respondents were in occupation of the building in question since before 5.7.1976, therefore, their possession stood regularised under Section 14 of the Act. Having recorded the said finding, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 27.7.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the respondent No. 1 has ignored the evidence filed by the petitioner and recorded findings which are not based on any relevant evidence.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.