Kamal Kishore, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against orders dated 28.10.1987 and 24.11.1987 passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 declaring vacancy in respect of the shop in question. The petitioners are the sitting tenant and the shop in question was let out to their father about more than forty five years by the father of respondent No. 3, the landlord. The respondent No. 3, the landlord, had earlier filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 against the sitting tenant which was rejected by the prescribed authority by an order dated 10.12.1976. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by an order dated 31.10.1977 passed by the District Judge Lucknow. The deceased petitioner No. 2, mother of the present petitioners carried out business of foreign liquor in the shop in pursuance of licence granted by State Government. After introducing auction system for liquor trade, the liquor business was continued for about two years but heavy losses were suffered. The deceased mother of the petitioners, therefore, started commission agency business as an agent of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Corporation Association Ltd. an agency agreement dated 17.3.1982 was executed. The respondent No. 3 moved an application under Section 16(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (Annexure V to the writ petition) before Additional District Magistrate (C.J.), Lucknow wherein the deceased mother of the petitioners was impleaded as opposite party No. 1 and U. P. Industrial Corporation Association Ltd. was impleaded as opposite party No. 2.
(2.) I have heard arguments of the parties counsel and have gone through the record.
(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel of the contesting opposite-party that the present writ petition against the order declaring vacancy is not maintainable as the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 has not provided any relief for the same. This argument advanced by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite-party is not tenable. The above controversy has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Ganpat Roy and Ors. v. Addl. District Magistrate and Ors., AIR1985 SC 1635 , 1985 (1)SCALE545 , (1985)2 SCC307 , [1985 ]3 SCR384 in which, it has been held that if the statutes does not provide any efficacious relief for tenant for challenging the findings regarding occurrence of deemed vacancy, writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the tenant would be maintainable. It is thus well settled that the writ petition is maintainable against the declaration of vacancy. The same view has been followed by this Court in the ruling Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Additional District Magistrate (E), Rae Bareli/R.C. and E.O., Rae Bareli and Anr., 2000 (1) ARC 276.;