- (1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, orders passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were challenged on the ground that the accommodation in dispute is a lodging house and that consequently, the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable. Both the courts below have held that the accommodation in dispute has not been proved to be a lodging house.
(2.) These are the relevant facts: The accommodation in dispute is a house No. 11 B. K. Benerji Marg, Allahabad. Earlier, the husband of the Petitioner Sri Raghavendra Pratap Singh was the owner. He got the house released for occupation by him and the members of his family. Thereafter, one Sri V.P. Rastogi was permitted to occupy the accommodation in dispute. Sri V. P. Rastogi vacated the accommodation. Applications were made by various individuals for allotment of the accommodation on the ground that the accommodation had fallen vacant with the exit of Sri V. P. Rastogi. The Respondent No. 3 Sri Mani Shanker Pandey was also one of such applicants. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer enquired into the matter and came to the conclusion that the accommodation was vacant, over-ruling the objections of the landlady that the accommodation was a lodging house exempt from the operation of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. After notifying the vacancy the accommodation was allotted to the Respondent No. 3, The Petitioner filed a revision which has .been dismissed by the learned District Judge.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that both the courts below have gone wrong in taking the view that the accommodation in dispute was not a lodging house and that the same was not outside the purview of the Act.;