- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 6. 2. 1993, declaring the vacancy of the premises in question consisting of three rooms, varandah, kitchen, bathroom and common latrine on the first floor of house No. 108/109 Gandhi Nagar Kanpur.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, petitioner's father Raghunath Prasad Dixit, was tenant of the disputed premises. Respondent No. 3 had purchased the entire house No. 108/109, Gandhi Nagar Kanpur from its previous owner namely, Shri Harish Chandra Gupta on 7. 3. 1990. A notice of vacancy was purported to have been given by Shri Raghunath Prasad Dixit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer stating that he had vacated the premises in dispute and shifted to his original house in the village and the vacancy may be declared. On this application, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit report. The Rent Control Inspector submitted report that the premises in question was locked-up. He appears to have handed over the possession to some other persons and the accommodation in question may be treated as vacant. Shri Raghunath Prasad Dixit on coming to know of the proceedings for declaration of vacancy and intimation dated 10. 10. 1990, filed objection dated 6. 4. 1991 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer alleging that he had never intimated the vacancy on 10. 10. 1990. He also filed an affidavit dated 29. 7. 1991 in support of his objection. Respondent No. 2 filed reply to the objection of Raghunath Prasad Dixit.
(3.) RAGHUNATH Prasad Dixit died on 17. 11. 1992. On 21. 11. 92 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order directing RAGHUNATH Prasad Dixit to appear before him on 5. 12. 1992. RAGHUNATH Prasad Dixit had already died on 17. 11. 1992 and the order was passed in ignorance of this fact. On 4. 2. 1993, counsel for RAGHUNATH Prasad Dixit, Shri Klb. Tiwari moved an application intimating the respondent No. 1 that RAGHUNATH Prasad Dixit died on 17. 11. 92 alongwith photostat copy of death certificate and requested that note be made that RAGHUNATH Prasad Dixit could not put appearance on 5. 12. 1992. On the same date respondent No. 1 passed the order that RAGHUNATH Prasad Dixit had died and photostat copy of death certificate be placed on record. He heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and fixed 6. 2. 1993 for orders. On 6. 2. 1993, the petitioner filed application for impleadment on the ground that he is one of sons of Raghunath Prasad Dixit and he should be impleaded. This application was rejected by respondent No. 1 on the same date and by another order on the same date he declared the vacancy of the premises in question. He took the view that one of the sons of Raghunath Prasad Dixit, namely, Shri Ashok Kumar Dixit had constructed his own house at plot No. 130, (Block 'p) Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur, therefore, the premies in question would be deemed as vacant. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.;