Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri T.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Shailendra appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and Sri Chandra Shekhar Srivastava appearing for the respondent No. 2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the shop in dispute from the time of his father late Pratap Narain Rastogi, running jewellery business. Respondent No. 2 moved an application under section 16(1)(b) for release of the shop in dispute in his favour stating that the petitioner after vacating the shop in dispute, has submitted it to respondent No. 7 Yogesh Kumar Rastogi. An inspection was carried by Rent Control Inspector who submitted his report on 30.1.2004 stating therein that when he visited the shop it was locked and he was told that the shop was in possession of Yogesh Kumar Rastogi who was carrying on his jewellery business. Having come to know of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner moved an application along with affidavit on 20.10.2004 for being impleaded as a party. It was stated therein that he is the tenant of the shop in dispute and the said shop has neither vacated by him nor he has sub -let the same. Respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated 30.12.2004 declared the vacancy.
(2.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 1 without disposing of the application filed by the petitioner. It has further been urged that no notice of the inspection was given to the petitioner and the alleged inspection was carried behind his back. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondents have tried to justify the impugned order.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;