Markandey Katju, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 29 -6 -1989 and 13 -1 -1995 (Annexures -7 and 8 to the writ petition). I have heard Sri R.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE landlord filed an application under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, alleging that the tenant had inducted his maternal uncle who is not a member of his family as defined in Section 3(g) of the Act, and hence, there was deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b). On this application the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report against the petitioner and ultimately the premises was declared vacant by the order dated 29 -6 -1989 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition). By the same order the premises were released in favour of the landlord, holding the need of the landlord as genuine. Against this order the petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by the order dated 13 -1 -1995. Aggrieved by this order this writ petition has been filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no vacancy as his maternal -uncle was his dependent. In my view the maternal -uncle is not family member of his family as defined in Section 3(g) of the said Act, and hence, the court below has rightly held that there was deemed vacancy. The revisional court has also held that the revision does not lie in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganpat Rai's case, 1985 (11) ALR 423 (SC). Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case I grant one year time to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner Daleep Singh and Balwant Singh will hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent No. 3 on or before 24th February, 1996, and shall pay rent till then regularly.;