O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The thumbnail sketch of the case is that the petitioner No. 1, Jagannath Sahal Varma is the owner-landlord of premises No. 1450/989 Mutthiganj. Allahabad. Upper portion of the said house was originally under the tenancy of one Gautam Deo Singh at the monthly rent of Rs. 100. An application for release--P.A. Case No. 52 of 1986 Under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the landlord. The said release petition was allowed on the basis of a compromise by the Prescribed Authority on 2.8.1986 pursuant to which, the landlord took vacant possession of the released upper portion of the house. Admittedly, Dilip Kumar Srivastava, who happens to be the real brother of the wife of the landlord lkyk occupied the released accommodation along with his family comprised of his wife and a child during the period 2.6.89 to 19.6.96, i.e., for a period more than 7-1/2 years. Thereafter the landlord inducted Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal alias Neelu-petitioner No. 2 as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,050 in pursuance of a tenancy agreement dated 10.1.1998 initially for a period of eleven months.
(2.) The respondent No. 2. Ashutosh Pandey and respondent No. 3, Vikas Kumar moved separate application for allotment of the upper portion of the said house as according to them, it was in unauthorized occupation of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal alias Neelu. On the applications for allotment, a report of the Rent Control Inspector was called for. The report dated 7.4.1998 filed by the Rent Control Inspector indicated that Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal is an illegal occupant of the upper portion of the accommodation released in favour of the landlord. Affidavits were exchanged between the applicants for allotment, on the one hand, and the landlord as well as alleged illegal occupant, on the other. After considering the material brought on record and appraising the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that a 'deemed vacancy' of the upper portion of the building in question in occupation of Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal alias Neelu-petitloner No. 2 has occured and accordingly by the impugned order dated 23.3.2001, Annexure 10 to the petition, the vacancy has been declared and notified. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come before this Court to challenge the order of vacancy by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Rajesh Tandon who appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 urged that the present petition be decided finally on merits on the basis of the material brought on record.;