- (1.) Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal who has appeared for respondent No. 4. The dispute is about two portions of house No. 5/415 Old Kanpur Nagar. Respondent No. 4 is said to have purchased the said house from the previous owner vide sale-deed dated 29.6.2009. In respect of the above portions of the house proceedings for declaring it to be vacant for the purposes of release/allotment were initiated before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The vacancy was declared vide order dated 14.12.2011. Petitioners who claim themselves to be the occupants of the said house preferred a recall application under section 34(1)(g) of the Act and the same was rejected. Subsequently, the sold portions of the house in dispute were released in favour of landlord vide order dated 16.11.2012. The two orders of vacancy and release were assailed by the petitioners by filing revision under section 18 of the Act. The revision has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.8.2014.
(2.) These orders have been impugned by petitioners by means of present writ petition. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they are tenants in the house in dispute for the last 40 years and therefore it cannot be declared or deemed to be vacant under the Act.
(3.) Section 11 of the Act clearly prohibits letting out any building except in pursuance of the allotment order issued under section 16 of the Act. Simultaneously, section 13 of the Act puts a complete embargo upon any person to occupy any building without an order of allotment and if it so occupied, the said person shall be deemed to be unauthorized occupant of the said building.;