B.K.Rathi, J. - (1.) The premises in dispute is a shop situated in premises No. 3/119. Vishnupurl, Kanpur Nagar. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the landlords of the premises, who purchased the same from the previous owner Smt. Mohini Tiwari by sale deed dated 17.6.1998. One Sri Nirankar Verma applied for the allotment of the shop. The Rent Control Inspector, on the basis of the application for allotment inspected the shop and submitted report on 30.10.1999. Annexure-4 to the petition : that the petitioner is unauthorised occupant of the said shop. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner which was served by publication. The petitioner did not file any objection in the proceedings. The shop was declared vacant by the respondent No. 1 by order, Annexure-9 to the petition on 10.4.2000. Thereafter, the respondents-landlords moved an application for release. Their release application was allowed and the premises was released in favour of the respondents by order dated 17.4.2000, Annexure-11 to the petition. The petitioner has made a request for quashing of the orders, Annexure-9 dated 10.4.2000 declaring vacancy and Annexure-11 dated 17.4.2000 of release in favour of landlords by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I have heard Sri M. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon. senior advocate assisted by Sri S. N. Mlshra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
(3.) Firstly, it is contended that no notice before declaration of vacancy was served on the petitioner, who is in occupation of the shop. Therefore, the order declaring vacancy is illegal. This contention cannot be accepted. The premises was inspected by the Inspector and, therefore, it can be presumed that the petitioner came to know of the proceedings. A notice was also sent and was served by affixation as the petitioner was not available. Thereafter, the notice was published in the newspaper, Annexure-5 to the petition. Therefore, there was due service of the notice on the petitioner and the orders cannot be quashed for this reason.;