- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.9.2008 and 19.6.2008 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (In short 'R.C.E.O.') and order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 13, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 3 of 2009 whereby the premises in dispute has been declared vacant and released in favour of the respondents-landlords. The brief facts of the case are as follows; (i) The dispute relates to the ground floor accommodation of the Premises No. 110/195, Ram Krishan Nagar, Kanpur Nagar (In short Premises No. 110/195) which is a double storey house. The ground floor of the premises comprises of two rooms, store, kitchen, Angan, one joint Veranda and latrine. The Premises No. 110/195 was purchased by the respondents in the year 2001. The respondents moved an application under section 12 read with section 16(1)(b) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (In short 'the Act') before the prescribed authority which was registered as Case No. 152 of 2008 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner No. 1, Radha Kirshna who was the tenant @ Rs. 65/- per month of the disputed premises has shifted to a vacant House No. 271A, Gujaini, Kanpur Nagar. It was further alleged by the respondent-landlords that despite the repeated demands, the petitioner No. 1 has not paid any rent since last five years and is keeping the Premises No. 110/195 locked after removing all his effects therefrom, as such, the accommodation in question has fallen vacant within the meaning of section 12 of the Act and was prayed to release the disputed premises in their favour for their personal need. In pursuance thereof, the R.C.E.O. directed the Rent Control Inspector (In short 'R.C.I.') to inspect the accommodation in question. The R.C.I. issued a notice under Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (In short 'the Rules') which was served upon the petitioner No. 1 through his brother petitioner No. 2, Purushottam Das. The duplicate copy of the said notice bears his signature. The landlords filed their written statement before the RCI, who submitted its report to the R.C.E.O. The R.C.E.O., after perusing the aforesaid report, issued notice to the petitioner No. 1. In support of their case, the landlords filed the affidavits of Sri Sharad Chandra Saxena, Amit Bhalla, Ramesh Wadhawan and Vinod Kumar, and also the voter list and identity card issued by the Election Commission before the Court below to demonstrate that the petitioner No. 1, in fact has shifted to his new residence. (ii) The petitioner No. 2, Purushottam Das filed his objections against the report of the R.C.I. supported by an affidavit before the R.C.E.O. wherein it was stated that, in fact, his father Sobhraj was the tenant of the Premises No. 110/195 and after his death, the same was inherited by him along with his brother petitioner No. 1, Radha Krishna and mother. It was further alleged in the objection that the respondents have wrongfully taken the possession of the first floor portion of the house which was in the tenancy of his mother. It was further stated that since, the petitioners are residing in the disputed premises, it cannot be said to be vacant. The Court below after hearing the parties declared the vacancy of the disputed premises and it was released in favour of the respondent-landlords. Against the order of vacancy and release, a revision was preferred by the petitioners which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.7.2010. Hence, the present writ petition. (iii) A perusal of the record shows that the vacancy proceedings with respect to the first floor accommodation of the disputed house was also initiated in the year 2003 and the matter was hotly contested by the petitioner No. 2, however, it was (first floor accommodation) declared vacant and released in favour of the respondent-landlords. Thereafter, a writ petition 170 of 2004, Purushottam Das v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was filed by the petitioner No. 2 which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 20.5.2010 by this Court and the vacancy order was confirmed.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the original tenant Shobhraj, after his death, the tenancy was inherited by them along with their mother. He further submitted that no notice under Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 1972 was ever served upon the petitioner No. 1. It was further submitted that R.C.E.O. has not assigned any reason for declaring the vacancy and by a non-speaking order the disputed Premises No. has been declared vacant. He further submitted that the order dated 20.5.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 170 of 2004, Purushottam Das v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby the order of vacancy with respect to first floor portion was confirmed by this Court has no bearing whatsoever on the issue in hand. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 2 has neither acquired the House No. 271A, Gujaini, Kanpur Nagar nor has shifted into it.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.;