R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, Petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 16 -12 -1981 passed by Respondent No. 1 declaring thereby the accommodation -43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, vacant under the provisions of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to the present dispute are that one N.K. Bajpayee, Respondent No. 3, moved an application on 5 -6 -1981 (registered as case No. 528 of 1981) for allotment of the accommodation stating that Shri Gautam Mathur who was occupying the accommodation in dispute has vacated the same on 4 -6 -1981 and thus the vacancy has occurred and the accommodation may be allotted in his favour. On this application Rent Control Inspector was deputed to make a local inspection and to submit his report. The inspector concerned after inspecting the building -43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad submitted his report on 11 -6 -1981 and stated therein that the aforesaid accommodation has been vacated by Sri Gautam Mathur, a visiting professor of Allahabad University. It has also been mentioned in the report that Shri Gautam Mathur has shifted to Delhi with his family about a month back and has started residing in his own house No. C -1, Gul Mohar Park, New Delhi. It will be proper to clarify here that the aforesaid building has two parts; the northern part is occupied by Sri P.B. Chaudhary as tenant and the present dispute is confined to the southern part of the building. In the inspection report the total accommodation in dispute has also been described according to which there are total nine rooms of different size including one in the first floor besides there being kitchen, two bath rooms and two latrines, varandah, court yard, portico and a lawn. On the basis of this report the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy and directed to issue an intimation to the landlord, i.e. Petitioner. On receipt of the notice, Petitioner put in his appearance and filed his objection supported by an affidavit wherein he stated that he is owner -landlord of building no 10/43, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, which is his permanent residential building. As he was presently posted at Delhi in connection with his employment as Manager (Tubes) in Indian Oil Corporation, the accommodation in dispute, i.e. southern portion was looked after by his tenant Shri Pratap Bahadur Chaudhary. The two portions are separated by a wall However, the accommodation on the southern side which is the major portion was never let out to any one and it throughout continued in his occupation and is fully furnished with house hold goods and furniture etc. In the absence of the Petitioner it was looked after by Mali cum -Chaukidar, namely Sheo Mangal and also by his tenant Pratap Bahadur Chaudhary with whom he has very cordial relations. It was also stated that at times Sri P.B. Chaudhary used the gallery and the room adjacent to it for accommodating his relatives whenever they visited him which was done without consent of the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner considering the cordial relations did not object to this temporary occupation. Shri Gautam Mathur who is nephew of Sri P.B. Chaudhary was allowed to occupy a few rooms without the consent of the Petitioner. However, he was neither tenant of the Petitioner nor that of Sri Chaudhary. He was only allowed to occupy the accommodation by Sri Chaudhary as he used to do in case of his sons and daughters visiting him. The accommodation was never vacant in fact or in law. The Petitioner further stated that he does not want to let out any part of the southern portion of the building which is in his occupation that he was not given any intimation by the Rent Control Inspector before making inspection though his address was fully known to him.
(3.) BOTH the parties were allowed to adduce evidence by means of affidavits. Sri Gautam Mathur also filed his affidavit which is annexure IV to the writ petition. In this affidavit he has stated that Sri P.B. Chaudhary is his uncle and during his brief stay at Allahabad as visiting professor his uncle had permitted him and his family to stay temporarily in a few rooms at 10, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad, that after a brief stay he came back to Delhi and no longer residing in the rooms in dispute; that he was not tenant of either Shri P.B. Chaudhary or of the landlord nor he ever paid any rent to either of them for staying in the building. Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16 -12 -1981, however, again determined that the accommodation in dispute is vacant and notified the same for allotment. Aggrieved by this order the present writ petition has been filed.;