K.M.DAYAL, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25th January, 1980 passed by VIth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 20.7.1978 by which he released the godown in question in favour of the landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was admittedly a tenant of the disputed accommodation. An application was made under Section 12(3) of the Act alleging that the building was let out to him for residential purposes and now the petitioner has got constructed his own house and has shifted to it, therefore, the accommodation in question should be deemed to be vacant.
(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the building was always used for business purposes. There was neither any kitchen nor latrine nor electric or water connection. An application was made for inspection of the disputed house. The reported of the Inspector is Annexure 'II' to the writ petition. From that report it appears that the building was in occupation of the petitioner since long. There was salt stored in about 3/4th portion of the room. Some of the portion of the house was in ruinous condition and it was being used only for godown purposes at the time of inspection. Thereafter the matter came up before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for determination of vacancy.;