ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Basant Lal, who alleges himself to be a tenant of the shop in question challenges the order dated 27-4-1993 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Jaunpur declaring the shop in question to be deemed vacant under Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter called the 'Act'.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the petitioner, Basant Lal, preferred a revision before the revisional authority as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. The revisional authority while dismissing the revision vide its judgment and order dated 19th May, 1998 affirmed the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jaunpur regarding the shop being deemed vacant. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that there is an allotment order dated 28th Nov., 1975 in favour of the petitioner, a copy of which has been annexed as 'Annexure 1' to the writ petition. Though it has been disputed by the landlady but assuming this to be an allotment order in favour of the petitioner-tenant, Basant Lal. The facts as set up in the writ petition further reveal that the allottee, Basant Lal, the petitioner in the present writ petition is carrying on partnership business in the name and style of M/s. Ram Chandra and Sons. On 29th Oct. 1985 Smt. Nirmla Devi landlady filed an application under Sections 12 and 16 of the Act before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Jaunpur that the accommodation may be declared deemed vacant and may be released in her favour. The Rent Control Inspector after inspecting the shop in question in presence of the parties submitted his report before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Prescribed Authority. On 6th August, 1988, on the basis of the material on record, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the accommodation to be deemed vacant. On 20th August, 1988, erstwhile landlord, Ram Adhar, has transferred the building in question wherein the shop is situated in favour of Smt. Nirmala Devi and when the petitioner-tenant went to offer rent to Smt. Nirmala Devi, she refused to accept the same and, therefore, the rent was deposited by the petitioner tenant under Section 13 of the Act.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy in the shop in question and releasing the same in favour of Smt. Nirmala Devi landlady, a revision was preferred before the revisional authority being Revision No. 164 of 1989 which was allowed by the revisional authority vide its order dated 19th Oct., 1989. The order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 6th August, 1988 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for decision in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both the parties. After affording opportunity to both the parties, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated 27th April, 1993 declared the vacancy, against which a review application was filed. The same was also rejected and thereafter, a revision, as stated above, was again filed before the revisional authority which was registered as Revision No. 111 of 1993.;