Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) THE dispute relates to a premises No. 51/84. Nayaganj Kanpur of which in one room on the ground floor the petitioner was a tenant. An application was filed by the third respondent Chandradhar Agnihotri on 5.11.2001 for allotment. The landlord alleged that the petitioner had inducted a partner and was carrying on business in Partnership by the name of N.S. Traders. If the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report that the accommodation was vacant. The petitioner filed objections alleging that he was tenant of the shop and was carrying on Kirana business therein and had with the consent of the landlord inducted a partner Ramesh Chandra and constituted a firm Dalchand and company but he never did any partnership business in the name of N.S. Traders. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar by his order dated 30.11.2002 it found that the petitioner had inducted a partner and declared vacancy. This is the order under challenge in this petition. The case of the landlord Shyam Kishan Bajoriya the second respondent was that the premises had been let out to Narendra Prasad who inducted without permission of the District Magistrate a partner Shailendra Kumar Mishra and opened a Partnership Firm in the name of N.S. Traders after the commencement of the Act No. 13 of 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar had summoned the record of the Sales Tax Officer Kanpur Nagar. For his finding that Shailendra Kumar Mishra was inducted as a partner of the petitioner the Rent Control and Eviction Officer relied upon the registration of the first N.S. Traders with the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur. He also relied upon the statement of N.S. Rai, Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Department who states that the firm N.S. Traders is registered with the Sales Tax Department and has two partners Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Narendra Prasad and Form 14 bears signatures. Form 14 is the application filed by the petitioner and Shailendra Kumar Mishra for registration. The second page of that application purports to bear the signature of the petitioner Narendra Prasad. Apart from this is a photo copy of the partnership deed dated 22.8.1996 entered into between the petitioner and Shailendra Kumar Mishra to run the partnership business in the name of N.S. Traders was also filed. A certificate of the State Bank of India, Canal Road too was filed in which it is certified that the petitioner Narendra Prasad and Shailendra Kumar Mishra were partners of a firm N.S. Traders which was having an account in the Bank and that the business of the firm commenced in the year 1996 and was closed in the year 2000. Affidavits of the parties and their witnesses were filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar. In the affidavit of Shailendra Kumar Mishra filed by the respondents he has stated that a partnership firm N.S. Traders was constituted in which the petitioner and he. (Shailendra Kumar Mishra) were partners. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar relying upon the records in respect of the registration and other papers held that a new partner Shailendra Kumar Mishra had been inducted and as such declared vacancy.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenged the Order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar on the ground that it is perverse. It is submitted that the signatures on Form 14 were not those of the petitioner nor indeed was any account opened by him in the name of the Partnership Firm N.S. Traders in the State Bank of India and that Shailendra Kumar Mishra had colluded with the respondent and fraudulently the papers have been manufactured. He submitted that by applying photo technique the signatures of the petitioner on the photo copy of the partnership deed were forged. The submission does not have force. The finding that Shailendra Kumar Mishra was inducted as a partner is based upon the material of which reference has been made above. The fact remains that the registration was made way back in the year 1996 when the controversy in the present case had not even arisen. It is clear that the controversy in the present case began with an allotment application filed by the respondent No. 3 in the year 2000 and in the circumstances the papers of the Sales Tax Registration which related to a period long before the controversy arose carried weight. The finding that a new partner Shailendra Kumar Mishra had been inducted is essentially a finding of fact in view of the material referred to above it cannot be said that the finding is perverse. No ground for interference in the order is made out.
(3.) IN the end the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that four months time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Learned Senior Counsel Sr. R.N. Singh who appeared for the landlord has no objection to this request provided the interest of the landlord is sufficiently safeguarded in the circumstances the petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises by 1.10.2003 provided the petitioner gives an undertaking before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar that he would handover peaceful possession to the landlord respondent No. 2 by 1.10.2003 and also pays regularly the monthly rent of Rs. 376/ -. In case such an undertaking is given within six weeks from today the petitioner shall not be evicted till 1.10.2003. The petitioner shall handover possession is the landlord by 1.10.2003. Subject to these directions the petition is dismissed.;