Satya Prakash Srivastava, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel representing the landlord respondent. The premises in dispute which as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners consists of the second floor of Premises No. 51/51, Nayaganj, Kanpur Nagar was declared to be vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide the order dated 16 -2 -1987 wherein it was held that the possession of the petitioner of the same was unauthorised. After declaring the vacancy as indicated above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the proceedings under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, took up the application seeking the release of the aforesaid premises and allowed the same vide order dated 21 -2 -1987.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition, the order declaring the premises in dispute to be vacant and the release thereof has been challenged asserting that there was no vacancy in law and the grant of release in the absence of a vacancy was wholly uncalled for. On 13th October, 1992, an affidavit was filed by Sri Madan Lal Goel on behalf of landlord respondent asserting that the petitioner had handed over the possession of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord and shifted to another accommodation. Along with the aforesaid affidavit a certified copy of the application claimed to have been moved by the petitioners before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had been annexed wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner had on its own free will vacated the premises in dispute and handed over the possession thereof to the landlord. It has further been stated in the said application that the petitioners had no subsisting claim or right left in respect of the premises in dispute. This application is claimed to have been filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 23 -4 -1992.
(3.) AN affidavit in reply to the affidavit referred to above was filed by Sri Ratan Lal one of the petitioners asserting that neither Ratan Lal nor any other partner of the firm ever gave possession of the accommodation in dispute to the Respondent No. 2. It has further been stated that the alleged application dated 23 -4 -1992 had in fact not been filed by Ratan Lal at all and his signatures have been forged. It has also been asserted that Sri Vishnu Narain, Advocate, who had filed the aforesaid application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not been engaged by Ratan Lal and his forged Vakalatnama had been filed. It has, however, been admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not using the accommodation in dispute and are not in possession thereof.;