Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) Sri Moolchand (the contesting respondent) is the landlord of the premises in dispute. One Pramod Kumar Gupta filed an application for allotment of the premises under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act,) 1972 (the Act) on the ground that it has become vacant. This application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 25.8.1981 holding that there is no vacancy in the premises in dispute. The contesting respondent filed a revision. It was allowed on 17.12.1983. Hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri P.K. Jain Counsel for the petitioner and R.P. Singhai and Sri N.K. Srivastava Counsels for the contesting respondent. It is admitted case of the parties that Subhash Chandra brother of the petitioner was tenant in the premises in dispute. According to the contesting respondent he has stopped doing business. He has now become lawyer and started practice. The case set up by the petitioner was that he alongwith his brother was doing business in the shop in dispute and agreement was also executed and was witnessed by the son of the contesting respondent. Thereafter the brother became lawyer in March, 1976 and he left the shop and since then the petitioner is continuing in the shop in question as a tenant and there is no vacancy.
(3.) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the evidence on record has held that the petitioner was tenant of the premises in dispute with the consent of the contesting respondent prior to 5.7.1976 and his possession is regularised under Section 14 of the Act. This finding has been recorded after considering the following facts - (i) There is an agreement between the parties, it has been witnessed by the son of the landlord. (ii) The brother became an advocate in March, 1976. (iii) The petitioner is in possession since 1974 when agreement was executed.;