- (1.) This petition is directed against orders passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 rejecting an application of the Petitioner for the release of a shop, of which the Respondent No. 3 was admittedly the tenant, under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) These are the relevant facts: The Respondent No. 3 Sri Lakshman Das was admittedly the tenant of the shop in dispute. The Petitioner moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) for the release of the shop on the ground that the said tenant had passed on possession of the shop to his brother Sri Chandra Prakash who is arrayed as Respondent No. 4, and that, therefore, this shop was liable to be deemed vacant under Section 12(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act. On the plea that the shop was vacant the Petitioner moved the aforesaid application for the release on the ground that the same was bonafide needed by him for his own use. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer rejected that application on the finding that the shop was not in fact vacant, nor could it be deemed vacant under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. The Petitioner, thereupon, filed a revision under Section 18 before the learned District Judge, Saharanpur, who has dismissed the same and hence this petition.
(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the finding of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that the shop in dispute had not fallen vacant was unsustainable in law. It was urged that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer committed a patent illegality in taking the view that it was the Joint Hindu Family of which Respondent No. 3 claimed to be the karta which was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute, inasmuch as, the Respondent No. 3 himself had in some correspondence asserted, that he was the sole tenant. Counsel also urged that the assessment orders were wrongly not summoned, by the Sales Tax Authorities as they were not confidential documents. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer committed an illegality in not insisting on the production of the same.;