S.P.Srivastava - (1.) BEING aggrieved by an order passed by the respondent no. 1 declaring the premises in question to be vacant and available for allotment/release in the proceedings under section 16 read with section 12 of the U. P. Act. no. 13 of 1972 the petitioner-tenant has approached this Court by means of this writ petition for redress seeking the quashing of the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner is a practising lawyer and had been utilishing the accommodation in dispute in connection with his legal profession as a chamber, ft appears that the petitioner had moved an application seeking allotment of the accommodation in dispute in his favour alleging that the said accommodation was to be deemed to be vacant as the said accommodation was being occupied by the landlord without an order of release in his favour who was running a business in cloth were in the name of his mother Smt Krishna Devi. On the receipt of the aforesaid application the Rent Control and Eviction officer issued a notice requiring the concerned parties including the sitting tenant to be present at the premises in dispute on 2-3-83 on which date local inspection was to be done. THE Kent Control Inspector submitted a report dated 7-3-84 wherein it was stated that the inspection of the premises in dispute was done by him on 3-3-84. In his report the Inspector has noted the presence of several persons at the time of inspection excepting the sitting tenant. In his report the Rent Control Inspector stated that the wife of the sitting tenant was running a cloth business in the premises in dispute for the past two years and ten months. He noted in his report that one Mukesh Kumar was present in premises who disclosed himself to be the servant of Smt Krishna Devi who used to sit in the shop occasionally. It was further reported that no chamber of a lawyer was being run in the said premises. THE Rent Control Inspector, however, recommended that the decision about the existence or otherwise of the vacancy in respect of the accommodation in dispute be taken after summoning the parties concerned and affording them an opportunity of being heard. On coming to know of the aforesaid report, the petitioner submitted an objection asserting that the report was absolutely wrong and had been submitted in flagrant disregard of the mandatory requirements as envisaged under rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act which contemplate an inspection in the presence of the sitting tenant/occupant, It was pointed out in the objection that although in the notice dated 25-2-89 it has been specifically mentioned that inspection shall be done on 2-3-84 no inspection was done on that date and no information at all was given to the sitting tenant on 3-3-84 when the premises in dispute were allegedly inspected. In his objections the petitioner asserted that the premises in dispute was being continued to be utilised as a chamber of the objector and his law-books and files of the cases were already lying there. However it was further asserted that the business of cloth was being carried on in a portion of the said accommodation by his wife Smt. Krishna Davi. In the aforesaid proceedings the prospective allottees the landlord as well as the sitting tenant were given fall opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer himself inspected the premises in dispute as is apparent from his inspection report dated 11-4-84. In his inspection report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer noted that the disputed accommodation was being utilised for tunning the business in the name and style of Krishna Vastra Bhandar and that there was no name-plate showing that the premises was being utilised as a Chamber of any lawyer. However it was noted that in the premises in dispute in a portion thereof some law-books were also being kept and certain old files of cases were also there. It was also noted that a cashmemo dated 1-3-84 was brought to his notice which did not bear the signature of any person After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that the tenant had established the shop in the name of his wife which was being run by the landlord. Being of the view that the tenant was not utilising the accommodation in dispute for the purposes of running his Chamber and it was the landlord who was running the cloth business therein, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that the conditions contemplated under section 12 of the U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972 stood satisfied in the present case and the premises in dispute was liable to be declared vacant. The premises in dispute was, therefore, declared as vacant under the impugned order. During the pendency of the writ petition a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner annexing therewith the true copy of the affidavit filed by the landlord Priya Datt in the proceedings as well as the true copy of the reply of Sri C. D. Misra. Advocate the sitting tenant which had been filed in the proceedings giving vise to the petition. Inspite of sufficient opportunity having been afforded, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in reply to the aforesaid supplementary affidavit denying or controverting the assertions made therein.
(3.) I have heard Sri P.M. Misra for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Agrawal for the newly impleaded respondent no. 4 the prospective allottee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that in the facts and circumstances, proved and established on record in the present case, there could be absolutely no justification for holding the;] premises in dispute to be deemed to have become vacant and the conclusions reached by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in this regard are manifestly erroneous and based on absolutely wrong assumptions which justify the quashing of the impugned order.;