Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of sufficient service. Initially building in dispute which consists of five rooms, two verandas, one store and other amenities was allotted to late Sri Syed Aqil Haidar husband of petitioners No. 1 Smt. Rabia Sultana and father of petitioner No. 2 Sri Javed Haider. After the death of Syed Aqil Haider, his widow Smt. Rabia Sultana, petitioner No. 1 applied for allotment. After the death of the tenant his widow inherits the tenancy, hence there was no need to apply for the allotment. The case was registered as Case No. 78 of 1984 in respect of House No. 3/94 Mustafa Manzil Zia Compound, Aligarh on the file of R.C. and E.O. Aligarh. Rent Control Inspector gave a report dated 28.11.1984 and found that Smt. Rabia Sultana, petitioner No. 1 was residing in the house in dispute. Copy of the report dated 28.11.1984 is annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. R.C. & E.O. Aligarh by order dated 26.4.1985 declared the vacancy. This writ petition is directed against the said order declaring vacancy R.C. & E.O. found that Smt. Rabia Sultana was not residing in the house in dispute and she had shifted to Saudi Arabia where her sons were settled and she had illegally handed over the possession of the house in dispute to Smt. Farhat Zaidi. R.C. & E.O. also observed that Smt. Rabia Sultana did not file any such evidence which could show that she was residing in the house in dispute. Rent Control Inspector had found that she was residing in the house in dispute. There was no evidence on record in respect of possession of Smt. Farhat Zaidi. In view of this finding of R.C. & E.O. suffer from two defects. Firstly R.C. & E.O. ignored the report of Rent Control Inspector and secondly it recorded the findings of possession of Smt. Farhat Zaidi without there being any evidence in that regard.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by R.C. & E.O. declaring vacancy is set aside. I have held in Khurshida v. A.D.J. : 2004 (55) ALR 585that while granting relief against the eviction to the tenant under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U.P. Rent Regulation Act) Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to reasonable extent. The accommodation in dispute consists of five rooms and is situate in Aligarh city. Accordingly it is directed that w.e.f. April 2005 onwards petitioner No. 1 shall pay rent to the landlord respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/ - per month.;