- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27-7-1995 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, declaring shop No. 45/9, Annapurnaganj, Varanasi, as vacant.
(2.) THE shop in question was owned by Shri Baldeo Das, husband of Smt. Shanti Devi-opposite party No. 1. After the death of Baldeo Das, Smt. Shanti Devi became owner and landlady of the shop in question. Shri Gopal Lal was the tenant of the shop in question. Shri Bitthal Lal, Shri Sandeep Kumar Gujarat! and Ambika Homoeo Pracharak Sansthan, Varanasi, iiied application for allotment of the shop in question on the allegation that Shri Gopal Lal had vacated the shop in January 1988, and the shop in question was liable for allotment. THE opposite pany No. 4, filed an application for release under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report regarding the vacancy. The Rent Control Ins pector submitted a report dated 5-4-1988 stating that Shri Gopal Lal was the tenant of the shop in question. He vacated the same in January, 1988 and paid the rent to the landlady opposite party Smt. Shanti Devi till the period January 1988. He passed over his possession to Shri Sita Ram (petitioner) m February, 1988, who was illegally in possession and had put a Sign Board on the shop in the name of Survodaya Bal Sangh. He also obtained the statement of Smt. Shanti Devi-landlady and one Gopal Lal the tenant. Gopal Lal made statement that Sita Ram was under his employ ment and he continued in possession till January, 1988. He was in illegal possession and had illegally put a Sign Board. On 1st March, 1990, an objection was filed, purported to be on behalf of Sarvodaya Bal Sangh, through its President (Shri Baikunth Nath Pandey) stating that Sita Ram was member of Sarvodaya Bal Sangh and ho was in possession of the shop in question and opened it for about an heur and it was being used as library for children. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy of the shop in question on 9th June, 1990 After the vacancy was declared, the petitioner filed an objection on the ground that ho was in fact the tenant and the order of declaring vacancy was passed without affording opportunity to him. The Rent Control and Evic tion Officer recalled his order dated 9th June, 1990. The opposite party No. 4 sold the shop in question to respondents 2 and 3 on 16-10-1991. After purchase of the said hop, they filed an application for release under Section 16 (1) (b)of the Act, on the ground that they bona fide required the shop in question for their personal need.
(3.) THE petitioner filed objection to the said release application that he was a tenant of the shop in question since prior to they year 1961 and the shop in question was not vacant. THE application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act was not maintainable. He filed an affidavit in support of his objection. He stated that he was tenant of the shop in question for the last 30-32 years. He had opened an office and library and the shop in ques tion was for entertainment of the children. He was a member of Sarvodaya Bal Sangh Society. It was stated in para 18 of the affidavit that Gopal Lal could not have vacated the shop as he was, in fact, not in possession. He annexed certain documents with affidavit to establish that he was tenant in the shop in question. : The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after considering the objection of the petitioner, held that the petitioner was not tenant of the shop in ques tion and declared it vacant by his order dated 27-7-1995. The petitioner has challenged this order in the instant writ petition.;