- (1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Service of notice upon respondent No. 2 is deemed to be sufficient in view of office report dated 9.7.2014 but no one has put in appearance and filed any counter-affidavit. Therefore, the Court has no option but to proceed ex parte.
(2.) Petitioner is the owner and landlord of the ground floor of the premises B-2/114 Bhadaini, Varanasi. One Brij Bhushan Singh respondent No. 2 applied for its allotment contending that it is vacant. On the allotment application proceedings for declaring the property to be vacant were initiated. A report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector dated 4.11.2009 in which apart from other things he stated that one Praveen Goyal the proprietor of M/s. Sari Niketan Private Limited who was in possession has informed that the rent of the shop is Rs. 7,000/- per month and therefore it is outside the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The' Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order dated 3.1.2008 declared the premises to be vacant vide order dated 12th July 2004. The petitioner applied for recall of the said order on the ground that it has been passed ex parte. The application was rejected vide order dated 3rd January 2008.
(3.) The above two orders have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.;