Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.7.1994 declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute and order dated 24.5.1996 whereby the application for review/recall of the order dated 22.7.1994 has been rejected. The petition is further directed for quashing the order dated 1.9.1997 passed in Revision No. 36 of 1996 filed against the order of vacancy and the rejection of the recall/review application. However, Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the revision having been filed on wrong advice was not maintainable and, therefore, is not praying for quashing of the said order dated 1.9.1997. Facts of the case are that Smt. Dev Rati Nigam respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlady of the House No. 104/112 Sisamau, Kanpur Nagar, hereinafter referred to as the building. The said building has ground floor and first floor. The dispute relates to first floor portion only, which is hereinafter referred to as the premises in dispute. The respondent No. 3 gave notice of vacancy to the District Magistrate under section 15 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and also filed an application for release of the ground floor premises of the building. It was alleged by respondent No. 3 that the premises in dispute had been let out to Shri Ram Sundar Gupta and since he had purchased House No. 127/W -1/407, Saket Nagar, Kanpur on 22.1.1992 and had started living there since 23.1.1993 there is deemed vacancy in the premises in dispute. The two brothers of Ram Sundar Gupta namely Ram Lal, and Ram Lakhan occupying the said premises in dispute have no legal right to continue as such vacancy may be declared. It was further mentioned in the release application that other brother of Ram Sunder Gupta was tenant on the 1st floor portion of the building on monthly rent of Rs. 102/50P.
(2.) IN the release application it was alleged that she bona fide required the premises in dispute for use and occupation of her growing family. On the proceedings initiated on the intimation of the vacancy given by the landlady the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report dated 153.1994 (Annexure -3) in which it was mentioned that Ram Lal and Ram Lakhan were in possession of the accommodation in dispute. It was further stated in the report that Ram Sundar Gupta was tenant since 1970 and he having purchased the house in Saket Nagar and having shifted there, the occupation of Ram Lal and Ram Lakhan over the premises in dispute was an illegal occupation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 22.7.1994 declared vacancy in respect of the premises in dispute (ground floor of the building). Till This stage the petitioner Ram Chandra Gupta had neither been served with any notice nor was he aware of the vacancy proceedings. However, after declaration of the vacancy he learnt about the same and immediately filed an application dated 22.8.1994 for recalling of the order of vacancy on the ground that he was the tenant of the ground floor portion of the building (premises in dispute) at monthly rent of Rs. 120/ - plus Rs. 24/60 P. as tax total rent being Rs. 144/60 P which he was regularly paying to the landlady and also had receipts of the same. The landlady by drawing a frivolous proceedings and deliberately impleaded Ram Sundar Gupta brother of the petitioner as opposite party in the release application to avoid the petitioner in the said proceedings. The petitioner on coming to know filed the review/recall application stating that there was no vacancy in the ground floor portion of the building.
(3.) THE recall/review application and affidavit have been filed jointly which is Annexure -5 and Annexure -6 are the rent receipts issued by the landlady in the name of Ram Chandra Gupta showing monthly rent as Rs. 144/60P. These receipts relate to the year 1992 -1993. Ram Chandra Gupta in his affidavit in support of the review application has specifically stated - in paragraph 1 that he was the tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 144/60P. He has denied that Ram Sundar Gupta was ever the tenant of the ground floor. Only by misreading and misguiding the Court the landlady obtained wrong order.;