S.K. Mookerji, J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the landlords challenging the orders dated 8 -5 -1984, 20 -3 -1986 and 16 -3 -1991. The dispute relates to House No. 2/273, Nawabganj, Kanpur. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 8 -5 -1984 declared the vacancy. Thereafter, the Petitioners applied for release of the accommodation, which was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 20 -3 -1986. The Petitioner landlords, there -after, filed a revision, which was dismissed by the order and judgment dated 16 -3 -1991 by the VIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The brief facts of the case are that R.K. Shukla and B.N. Bhardwaj, Advocates and several others applied for allotment of the House No. 2/ 273 Nawabganj, Kanpur. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after obtaining the report from the Inspector concerned, declared the vacancy by the order dated 8 -5 -1984. The Rent Control Inspector reported that Durga Dutt Joshi was the previous tenant and, thereafter, landlords also appeared and he furnished the intimation of vacancy dated 13 -3 -1980 and landlords also filed objection against the report of the Inspector and filed objection against the intimation of vacancy. Sri Trilok Chand Joshi, holder of Power of Attorney from the landlords, filed an affidavit and also a copy of the Power of Attorney before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. After hearing the parties and relying upon the statement of Durga Dutt Joshi and the report of the Rent Control Inspector, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that Durga Dutt Joshi was the tenant and, ultimately, by the impugned order, he declared the vacancy and passed the order notifying the vacancy. Thereafter, the landlords did not challenge the order of vacancy by filing any writ petition in this Court, but made an application for release of the accommodation in question. After hearing the parties and examining the materials on record, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the release application of the landlords by his impugned order dated 20 -3 -1986. Aggrieved, the landlords filed a Rent Control Revision, which was also dismissed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar by his impugned order dated 16 -3 -1991.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners has made a statement before me that he is questioning the impugned order dated 8 -5 -1984 only by which the vacancy was declared. He also stated that he is not questioning the order dismissing the release application of the landlords dated 20 -3 -1986. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further stated that he was not also questioning the legality of the impugned order dated 16 -3 -1991 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Thus, the validity and legality of the question of vacancy dated 8 -5 -1984 only is before me.;