B.K.Rathi, J. - (1.) The premises in dispute is house No. 143-C Mohalla Zakati, Koocha Kole-walan, Bareilly. Originally, Tej Bahadur was tenant in the said house who had died leaving his only son Subhash Chandra Saxena. the present petitioner. Subhash Chandra Sexena is in service at Budaun and is living there. Therefore, the house was lying vacant. It was, accordingly, declared vacant on 27.6.1986. Subhash Chandra Saxena moved an application for review of the order dated 27.6.1986 which was also rejected on 27.2.1987. Thereafter, the application of the respondents-landlords for the release was considered and the premises was released in their favour by order dated 9.2.1988 by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, Annexure-2 to the petition. Against that order the petitioner Subhash Chandra Saxena filed a revision No. 44 of 1988 challenging the vacancy and also of the order of release. The revision has also been dismissed by order dated 30.7.1991, Annexure-1 to the petition. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subodh Kumar, learned counsel for landlords -respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Achal Mishra v. Rama Shankar Singh, 2000 (2) ARC 446. In this case, the two Judges Bench of the Apex Court observed that the decision in Ganpat Roy's case holding that the validity of vacancy cannot be agitated in a revision under Section 18 of the Act appears to be incorrect. It was observed in this case that in revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. the question of vacancy can very well be challenged as it pertains to Jurisdictional facts, that if there is no vacancy the allotment order can be set aside. The matter was referred to the Larger Bench for decision. However, the revisional court has already considered the question of vacancy in the revision, 1 also consider the correctness of the finding on the question of vacancy. It is not disputed that Tej Bahadur was originally tenant of the disputed house who has died leaving behind the petitioner as his only heir. He is admittedly in serving at Budaun. It was pleaded by him that his wife is living at Baretlly. However, no cogent evidence was produced regarding it. On the other hand, the landlord has alleged that the premises is lying locked. The Rent Control Inspector went on the spot and found the premises to be locked. Except the affidavit, no document could be filed by the petitioner to show that his wife is living at Bareilly. Therefore, there was a vacancy. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the revisional court have rightly held that there was a vacancy.
(3.) The premises has been released in favour of the landlord and the petitioner has no right to challenge the release. In any case, the perusal of the orders of both the courts below show that the question of need of the landlord have been considered in detail. Considering the status of the landlord and the size of his family, both the courts below recorded the findings that there is bona fide need of the landlord of the house in dispute. Concurrent findings regarding the bona fide need cannot be disturbed in this petition.;