Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) THE aforementioned writ petitions were heard and dismissed in open Court today for reasons to be recorded later on. My reasons for dismissing these writ petitions are as follows.
(2.) HEARD Sri Amitabh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent-landlord. In this landlord-tenant dispute, the petitioner claiming himself to be a tenant, has challenged the order dated 17.10.2003, passed by the prescribed authority rejecting the application of the respondent and declaring vacancy in respect of House No. 45, Khurshed Bagh, P.S. Naka Hindola, city Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the premises). The first floor of the premises has been released in favour of Surendra Nath Dinger, the landlord respondent. It has emerged from record that the premises was initially owned by one Sri Vishnu Swaroop Dinger. He had executed a registered Will deed on 17.11.1984 and in pursuance of the said Will, the respondent Surendra Nath Dinger became the absolute owner, landlord of the first floor of the premises. His younger brother Sri Narendra Nath Dinger became the absolute owner of the ground floor of the said building. The first floor of the premises is a residential accommodation comprising four rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath-room and verandah. One Sri Amar Singh Sethi was inducted as tenant in the first floor of the said premises. Later on he shifted to his own house No. 288/115 at Arya Nagar, Lucknow with his family members, where he has been and is residing.
(3.) THE petitioner has claimed himself to be a member of Amar Singh Sethi's family. As per petitioner, he is elder brother of Amar Singh Sethi and had been living in the first floor of the premises alongwith the family of Sri Sethi. Sri Amitabh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed that the petitioner is a family member of Sri Amar Singh Sethi and while shifting to his house at Arya Nagar, Sri Sethi had left the petitioner to continue in the premises as joint-tenant. THE petitioner Narendra Singh thus became a tenant of the said premises. He has also submitted that the petitioner was paying rent to the landlord and was recognized as a legal valid tenant. The record further reveals that the premises in question was deemed vacant under Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and as such the landlord moved a release application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act on 28.1.1992. In the said release application, the landlord had stated that Sri Vishnu Swaroop Dinger, father of the present landlord, had let out the premises in question to Sri Amar Singh Sethi on a monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month. In the said application, it was highlighted that the tenant, namely, Amar Singh Sethi had acquired a house at Ram Sagar Misra Nagar Colony (Indira Nagar), Lucknow. Sri Sethi later on built a new house, i.e., house No. 288/115 at Arya Nagar, Lucknow. It was indicated in the release application that Amar Singh Sethi had vacated the premises and handed over its vacant possession in 1989 to Sri Narendra Singh, the petitioner. According to the landlord Vishnu Swaroop Dinger, the petitioner Narendra Singh was not a family member of the outgoing tenant Sri Amar Singh Sethi. The Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises in question, verified the facts and submitted his report to the trial court on 19.2.1992. He had taken the statement of petitioner Narendra Singh that he was living in the premises since February, 1966, with his younger brother Sri Amar Singh Sethi. The petitioner has admitted in his statement that his brother had constructed his own house No. 288/115 in Mohalla Arya Nagar, Lucknow and he shifted to that house. Although the petitioner Narendra Singh told the Rent Control Inspector that he had remitted the rent through money-order which was returned back, but no receipts, money-order receipts etc. were placed by him before the prescribed authority or this Court to demonstrate that he actually paid any rent to the landlord.;