Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Som Narayan Mishra, learned Counsel for the caveator respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 11.9.2006 (Annexure-4 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer) by which the vacancy in the accommodation in dispute has been declared order dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure-6 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer) which is the release order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and order dated 4.6.2007 (Annexure-13 passed by Additional City Magistrate (Acquisition) Kanpur Nagar) issuing Form D for possession of the landlord in pursuance of the aforesaid orders.
(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in spite of their objection, vacancy was declared by the order dated 11.9.2005 against the evidence on record, i.e., without considering the rent receipts filed from 1954 onwards. The order dated 20.12.2006 has been assailed on the ground that the compliance of Rule 8 (2) read with Rule 9 (3) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not complied with before passing of the release order and that since she is living in the house in dispute since the time of her father-in-law alongwith her family, who was a tenant of the house in dispute, issuance of Form D in the circumstances is illegal and without application of mind.;