Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of an order dated 6.11.2007 by which vacancy of the shop in dispute situated on the ground floor in premises No. B1/85A, Assi in the City, Varanasi has been declared. The order dated 9.1.2008 allotting the shop in dispute to respondent No. 1 and consequential order dated 12.2.2008 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi as well as the order of the Revisional Court dated 16.7.2009 have also been challenged. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid orders and for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi not to evict the petitioner from the shop in dispute in pursuance of the allotment order dated 19.1.2008 and the consequential order dated 12.2.2008 regarding delivery of possession of the shop in dispute to respondent No.1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims himself to be the tenant of the shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month since life time of his grand father late Hira Lal. The petitioner is carrying on the business of "Pan" or betel therein under the name and style of" Rajesh Pan Bhandar". The landlord Sri Uma Shankar Pandey is said to be confined to bed due to his illness and as such the rent of the shop in dispute was paid by Smt. Dulari Devi, the mother of the petitioner to Smt. Lila Devi, wife of the landlord till January, 2007; that respondent No. 2, Smt. Lila Devi refused to accept the rent after January, 2007 and as such the rent was tendered to her by the mother of the petitioner Smt. Dulari Devi through money order which also was not accepted by Smt. Lila Devi, hence an application was moved by Smt. Dulari Devi, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division),Varanasi under Section 30 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for grant of permission to deposit the rent of the shop in dispute in the Court. It appears that in the aforesaid circumstances an application was moved by prospective allottee, Sri Indrajeet Pratap Shahi, Advocate under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the prescribed format for declaration of vacancy in the premises in dispute.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Area Rationing Officer submitted his report under Rule 8(2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Rules, 1972 to the effect that he had inspected the shop in dispute on 19.9.2007 in presence of Smt. Lila Devi and respondent No. 1. In his report he has stated that he has found the shop in dispute was lying closed and the petitioner was not present on the spot. He recorded the statement of Smt. Lila Devi in presence of two witnesses of the locality namely, Sri B.N. Verma and Sri Shiv Nath to the effect that the shop in dispute was let out to the petitioner on 1.8.2001 for a period of 11 months for a tailoring business and not for business of 'Pan' or betel to Rajesh; and that he is not paying the rent w.e.f. January, 2002. The petitioner put in appearance before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and engaged Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate of practicing in Civil Court, Varanasi to represent him. The said Advocate did not pursue the case as such the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 6.11.2007 declared vacancy of the shop in dispute and by subsequent order dated 19.1.2008 allotted it in favour of respondent No. 1. He also issued Form-C on 12.2.2008 for delivery of possession of the shop in dispute to him.;