Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts of this case, in short compass, are that one Mrs. Dorris Kempstor was the first wife of the petitioner who expired in 1963 leaving behind her 5 children (2 sons and 3 daughters). On 6.2.1967 the petitioner married with a widow Vimla Caludious alias Vimla Victoria who was issueless.
(2.) THE petitioner occupied the premises in dispute on rent at the rate of Rs. 45/ - per month in 1968, which was paid to the erstwhile landlord Smt. Prabhawati. The accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner consisted of one room, a verandah, open courtyard and common amenities. It is alleged that rent receipts were used to be issued by Smt. Prabhawati in the name of Smt. Vimla wife of the petitioner. On 25.10.1976 the eldest daughter of the petitioner was married from the premises in dispute. From 1984 thereafter Sri Banwari Prasad Tewari as holder of power of attorney of Smt. Prabhawati started taking rent from the petitioner and issued rent receipts also. Since the rent was refused to be accepted by Sri Banwari Prasad Tewari on 13.8.1988, the petitioner sent the same by money order which too was refused by him.
(3.) IT is alleged that Smt. Vimla moved an application for depositing the rent in Court which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 15.3.1989 granting permission to deposit the rent in Misc. Case No. 729/70/88, Smt. Vimla v. B.P. Tiwari. The landlord raised objection that Smt. Vimla was not the wife of the petitioner. However, the objection of the landlord was rejected. Smt. Vimla died on 16.4.1996. The Court vide order dated 18.7.1998 held that Smt. Vimla was the wife of the petitioner. Thereafter, Sri Banwari Prasad Tewari moved an application dated 11.1.2000 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to declare vacancy in the premises in dispute under section 15(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that Smt. Vimla had expired and the petitioner was residing in the premises in dispute without any allotment order, as Smt. Vimla was not related to him.;