Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.1983 whereby the disputed accommodation has been declared as vacant.
(2.) The petitioner was admittedly tenant of the disputed premises. He was transferred from Jhansi to Lucknow in the year 1973. He thereafter retired on 1.12.1974. Smt. Gudlno Devi was owner of the property. Smt. Saroj Kumari, respondent No. 2, purchased the disputed house from the erstwhile owner Gudino Devi. After purchase of the property she moved an application on 31.8.1981 to declare the disputed accommodation as vacant on the allegations that the petitioner was transferred in the year 1973 and on such transfer the accommodation should be treated as vacant. The petitioner filed objection stating that he was transferred for a short time and thereafter he retired from service on 1.12.1974 and was residing in the disputed house. He also claimed that even after transfer his family members continued to live in the disputed house. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by the impugned order dated 25.8.1983, held that as the petitioner was transferred, the accommodation in question shall be treated as vacant. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. M. Saxena. learned counsel for the contesting respondent.;