Saiyed Haider Abbas Raza, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED against the order dated 2 -4 -88, contained in Annexure -9, by means of which the Additional City Magistrate, (Rent Control) Lucknow, opposite party No. 2 declared vacancy of the shop in question under Section 12(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter called the 'Act') the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by preferring the present writ petition. The dispute relates to a shop, situated in a Building bearing No. 222/2, Raja Bazar, Lucknow which is owned by opposite party No. 1. In the said' building there are three shops in the use and occupation of Sarva Sri Muona Lal, Rajaram and the petitioner in which they carry on the business of manufacture and sale of Batasa, Reori and milk products.
(2.) IT was averred in the writ petition that one shop in question was previously in the tenancy of one Buddhu Lal who used to carry on the business of manufacture and sale of Batasa, Reori etc. As he was alone and aged he sustained loss in the business. Hence, he entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 25 -12 -71 and started business of milk and milk products with the petitioner in partnership. The said Buddhu, Lal, who was issueless, died in the month of January, 1983 at the age of 85 and since then the petitioner alone was carrying on the said business. It was averred that since the petitioner entered into partnership with Buddu Lal he has been paying rent to opposite party No. 1. It was further averred that opposite party No. 1 who is a lawyer, preferred an application under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Additional District Magistrate (E), Lucknow, that as the shop in question, after the death of Buddhu Lal, had fallen vacant it might be released to him for the purpose of opening a lawyer's chamber in the said shop. The opposite party No. 2 who is Additional City Magistrate (II) (Rent Control), Lucknow, called for a report of the Inspector. On 8 -6 -83 the Inspector submitted the report in which he stated that at the time of inspection the petitioner was found to be carrying on the business of milk and curd etc., in the shop in question. The tenancy was in the name of Buddhu Lal with whom the petitioner, since last 7 or 8 years, was carrying on partnership business and after his death, 2 or 3 months back, he has been carrying on the said business. He further stated that Buddhu Lal had a nephew who lives in Daliganj. The Inspector further stated that the landlord disclosed to him' that rent since January, 1983 was due and when the landlord went to realise the rent it transpired that Buddhu Lal had expired and the petitioner had been, in occupation of the said shop in unauthorised manner. The landlord further disclosed to him that he is a lawyer by profession and he wants to run his chamber in the shop in question. Adjacent to the shop he has a house in which his elder brother resides but as the house is in a lane the vehicles cannot reach the house. He lives' in a house which is situate at Kachcha Hata, Lucknow in which he has a share. In the said house at Kachcha Hata be has his chamber. He had issued receipt to Buddhu Lal for realisation of rent in the month of December, 1982.
(3.) IT is further averred in the writ petition that neither in the release application nor in the affidavit forming part of the release application it was mentioned that since when the shop in question was occupied by the petitioner.;