Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.6.1992 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, who is landlord, to declare the shop in question as deemed vacant under section 12 read with section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The dispute relates to shop No. 525 -F (old), 178 -F (new) situate in Bazar, Vrindaban, Mathura, Thakur Gopal Ji Maharaj Virajman, Barsaney Wali Kunj is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop and the present petitioner is the Mutwalli. The said shop was initially let out to one Parsi Mal and thereafter to Madhuri Sharan, the grand father of the respondent No. 2 (since deceased). An application for declaring the shop as vacant was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the tenant has substantially removed his effects from the disputed shop and has sublet it from time to time to different persons. Initially the tenant was carrying on the business under the name and style of "Pradeep Vastra Bhandar". It was further stated that the respondent No. 2 has got allotted another shop No. 463/2, Lohi Bazar, Vrindaban. A report from the Rent Control Inspector was called. Initially the Rent Control Inspector filed a report dated 26.10.1988 while the application for declaration of vacancy was filed on 28.10.1988. Obviously, the said report was placed by mistake. An application was filed on 17.1.1989 by the petitioner to call for a report from the Rent Control Inspector. On the said application, the report was called and the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report dated 5.2.1989, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition. The case of the contesting respondent No. 2 was that he has not removed his effects from the disputed shop and still he is carrying on the business therefrom. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The respondent No. 1 by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.
(2.) SRI A.S. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted following three points in support of the writ petition. (1) The Rent Control Inspector submitted the report dated 6.2.1989 in violation of the rule framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. (2) The Rent Control & Eviction Officer has failed to take into consideration the evidence produced by the petitioner and the judgment is based on irrelevant consideration. (3) The proceedings before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer were conducted in an arbitrary manner. Elaborating the first point, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report of the Rent Control Inspector was not placed on the notice board. Hence, the petitioner could not file objection to the said report. I have given careful consideration to the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is difficult to agree with him. Sri Rai learned Counsel for the petitioner accepted that the petitioner did not file any objection to the aforesaid report. A bare perusal of the report of the Inspector shows that the inspection was carried on in presence of the petitioner. Not only this, the statement of the petitioner was also recorded by him and the said statement was annexed and was made part of the said inspection report. The petitioner could not dare to deny the fact that the statement annexed along with the report of the Rent Control Inspector does not bear his signatures. There is a presumption under law that official acts are done in accordance with law. The burden was upon the petitioner to rebut the said presumption. The petitioner did not file any objection against the report of the Rent Control Inspector before the authority below and, as such, it cannot be said that the inspection was carried on by the Inspector in the absence of the petitioner, specially when in the report itself it is mentioned that the petitioner was present at the time of inspection. The fact that the petitioner has not denied his signatures on the statement given to the Rent Control Inspector, which has been made a part of the report, goes a long way to reject the aforesaid objection of the petitioner.
(3.) NEXT , it was contended that the finding recorded by the authority below that there was no vacancy is vitiated on account of the fact that it has failed to consider the relevant material placed by the petitioner. In para -8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that it has filed various documentary evidence in the shape of affidavits. Besides the affidavits of different persons, the petitioner had also placed reliance upon the statement of Pradeep Kumar who is the son of respondent No. 2. The said statement is dated 13.4.1985 and was given in Case No. 93 of 1986 -between Poonam Rani v. Pokharmal Parmeshwari Trust.;