- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated December 6, 2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Supplies)/rent Control and Eviction Officer, in case No. 69 of 1999, with respect of the house No. C-08/99 Chetganj, Varanasi, declaring the accommodation in question as vacant in proceedings under Section 16 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ).
(2.) THE petitioner claims himself as tenant of a shop on the ground floor of premises No. C-08/99, Chetganj, Varanasi, since before 1972. An application for release of the said shop under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act was filed by Smt. Asha Devi, respondent No. 1 herein claiming herself as owner and landlord of the said shop on the pleas inter alia that initially the shop in question was in the tenancy of one Narain Das since before 1972 who died in the year 1980 and thereafter the present petitioner has come into possession, who is brother-in-law of Narain Das (deceased) of the said shop. It was stated that there is a vacancy under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed shop without an allotment order. It was so held in SCC Suit No. 77 of 1997, decided on 6th of August, 1999. It is not necessary for the purposes of disposal of the present writ petition to notice the allegations of the respondent No. 1 with regard to her bona fide need in view of the order proposed to be passed in the present writ petition. The said application particularly as to whether there is a vacancy in the shop in question was contested by the present petitioner denying the contention of the respondent No. 1 that he is an unauthorized occupant with the plea that he is in possession of the disputed shop as tenant with the consent of the landlady prior to 5th of July, 1976 which is a cut off date as provided in the said Act. The respondent No. 2 by the impugned order dated December 6, 2001 declared the shop in question as vacant on the finding that the occupation of the petitioner over the disputed shop is unauthorised one.
(3.) HEARD Shri S. N. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prakash Padia, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and the learned standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the question of vacancy and holding that the petitioner is unauthorized one is against the provisions of Section 14 of the Said Act. The learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. On a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, such as municipal assessment since 1st of April, 1976, receipt issued by the electricity department dated 9th of June, 1973 wherein name of the petitioner is mentioned, other receipt dated 3rd of August, 1973, 6-4-1974 and 31st of January, 2001, the registration certificate issued by the labour department of the year 1976 etc. and reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has been in occupation of the disputed premises since before the cut off date, i. e. , 5th of July, 1976. The vacancy was declared on the ground that there is no material on record to show that possession of the petitioner prior to 5-7-1976 was with the consent of the landlady. In this connection, it is relevant to extract Section 14 of the Act which reads as follows : 14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants.- "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building. ";