- (1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioner was allotted shop No. 85-T (new No. 85/3), Swami Ghat, Mathura in 1971 and was running a business of hosiery at the relevant time from the disputed shop. The respondent No. 2 made an application for allotment on the ground that the petitioner had vacated the disputed shop. Upon his application, a report dated 18.1.1997 was submitted by the Inspector showing that the brother of the petitioner was found running the shop.
(2.) Upon notice, the petitioner filed his affidavit and affidavits of his witness to prove that, in fact he was the allottee and his brother was only helping him. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller, dismissed the objection of the petitioner and notified the vacancy vide order dated 15.11.1994. The petitioner filed an application for review which has also been rejected vide order dated 28.1.1999. Both the orders are under challenge in these proceedings.
(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Rent Controller had erred in law in holding the vacancy merely on the basis that at the time of inspection, his younger brother was looking after the shop and it totally ignored the allotment order, the rent receipts, electricity connection, cash memos, bills of purchase of goods for the shop, which all were in the name of the petitioner without there being any evidence to the contrary.;