Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the occupant against the order dated 17.10.1985 passed by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority, Meerut declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute in proceedings under section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute relates to the shop No. 300 (old)/67 (New) Bazar Bajaja, Meerut City, Meerut. Respondent No. 2 Lala Musaddi Lal is the landlord and owner of the said shop. Initially, the said shop was in the tenancy of Nanak Chand. It is alleged that on the death of Nanakchand, the said shop was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.7.1973 on monthly rent of Rs. 11.20p. by the landlord Musaddi Lal. The petitioner has continuously remained in the possession and is paying rent to the landlord regularly.
(2.) AN application was filed by Sri Sharafat Ahmad seeking allotment of the shop on the ground that the same has fallen vacant and the landlord Musaddi Lal illegally inducted the petitioner without any order of allotment in the year 1982. On the said application a Case No. 249 of 1984, Sri Sharafat v. Musaddi Lal was registered in the Court of District Supply Officer, Meerut. Report was called from the Rent Control Inspector who submitted his report on 11.7.1984. It was reported that the shop was locked at the time of inspection and previous tenant Nanak Chand has died about 2 -3 years back and the shop was in the possession of landlord. Pursuant to the said report notices were issued. The landlord and the petitioner both contested the said application. The petitioner filed his objection dated 30.8.1984 (Annexure -2 to the petition) wherein it was alleged that he was tenant of the said shop since July 1973 and was continuing in possession and paying the rent. According to him in paras 17 -18 his possession having been there since before the commencement of the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 with the consent of the landlord, his occupation was regularized and he was deemed to be regular tenant under section 14 of the Act. As such there was no vacancy. The petitioner also filed evidence in support of his contention. It was also alleged in the objection that the inspection made by Rent Control Inspector was without notice to the petitioner or landlord and as such violated Rule 8 of the 1972 Rules framed under the Act. The District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority vide order dated 17.1.1985 has declared vacancy over the shop in dispute disbelieving the case as set up by the petitioner and holding that he entered into possession in 1982 and not before 1976 as alleged. It is against the said order; the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) I have heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. Despite notice no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2.;