Honourable Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) RESPONDENT landlord applied under Section 15(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for declaration of vacancy in godown No. 1 of Sri Ram Mahadev Prasad, a registered firm situated at 363, Harrisganj, Police station Rail Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, in which the petitioner claims to be a tenant since 1990. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that Rent Control Inspector without compliance of Rule 8(2) of the Rules framed under the Act, submitted his report regarding vacancy. Notices issued by the prescribed authority, are claimed not to have been served upon the petitioner by registered post as they have been returned with postal remark "not claimed". The respondent then got the notices published in daily newspaper "Lok Jan Samachar", in response to which also, the petitioner did not put in appearance. The prescribed authority thereafter proceeded to declare vacancy by its order dated 18.6.2009. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the respondents got their application under Section 16 of the Act as not pressed and has again applied under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, but the petitioner was not served with any notice of these proceedings also and in the circumstances, the prescribed authority vide its order dated 30.7.2009 released the disputed premises in favour of the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. The petitioner thereafter received from "C" issued on 22.7.2010 and came to know about the ex parte order. He then applied on 12.8.2010 for recall of the orders dated 18.6.2009 as well as order dated 30.7.2009.
(3.) THE recall application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the prescribed authority vide order dated 31.1.2011. Aggrieved the petitioner has come up in this petition challenging the validity and correctness of the orders dated 31.1.2011,22.7.2010,30.7.2009 and 18.6.2009 appended as Annexure Nos. 8, 5,4 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. THEse orders have been challenged on the ground that the prescribed authority/Additional City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar has committed an illegality in rejecting the recall application only on the ground that petitioner has admitted the fact that he was a tenant since 1990 without any allotment order issued under the Act and his tenancy cannot be regularised. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that limitation for declaration of vacancy or for moving release application under law is 12 years from the date of coming into possession of the accommodation by the tenant or other person. It is stated that as the application of the landlord for declaration of vacancy and release, was filed beyond the period of 12 years, it was barred by time. According to the counsel, the prescribed authority has not applied its mind to the explanation given by the petitioner for his non appearance while deeming the service of notice as sufficient by publication.;