S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2000, passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Delegated Authority/ District Supply Officer, Meerut declaring vacancy of the accommodation in dispute under Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Earlier also proceedings for declaration of vacancy were initiated by landlord-respondent No. 2 Shrimati Santosh Rani Jain against tenant Sheetal Prasad Jain, in the form of Case No. 62 of 1992. In the said case the allegation was that the tenant had purchased another house bearing number 182 Anandpuri. Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 17.5.1995 rejected the earlier application holding that in Property No. 182 Anandpuri no house was existing. The said order was maintained in revision, which was dismissed on 31.8.1996. The revision was dismissed mainly on the ground of non-maintainability.
(2.) After dismissal of revision on 31.8.1996 two applications were filled by landlord-respondent No. 2 before Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 26.9.1996. One application was for review of order dated 17.5.1995 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer in Case No. 62 of 1992. The other application was a fresh application for declaration of vacancy and release which was registered as Case No. 118 of 1996 Case No. 118 of 1996 (fresh application for declaration of vacancy and release) was allowed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 31.5.2000 (the said order is under challenge in this writ petition). In view of said order Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the review application filed in Case No. 62 of 1992 on the same date i.e., 31.5.2000. The said order is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The order declaration vacancy is Annexure 6to the writ petition.
(3.) During pendency of proceedings before Rent Control and Eviction Officer giving rise to the instant writ petition, the original tenant Sheetal Prasad died and was survived by his widow petitioner No. 1 and three sons Vishal Jain, petitioner No. 2, Satish Jain and Anil Kumar Jain, proforma respondents No. 3 and 4 in this writ petition. Petitioner No. 1 widow of original tenant Sheetal Prasad filed affidavit and stated that she had no concern with House No. 182 as it was constructed by Anil Kumar Jain, respondent No. 4 and he was residing in the said house. She further stated that she was residing in the house in disputed along with her son Vishal Jain, petitioner No. 2. In respect of Satish Jain, respondent No. 3, original tenant Sheetal Prasad had already stated that he was not his family member and he was residing at 13-C Jain Nagar, which he had acquired.;