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 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 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. 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. The case of the petitioner is that Abdul Gani father-in-law of petitioner No. 1, Smt. Nasima Begum, and grand-father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 20/- of one room 10/25 of House No. 79/23, Bans Mandi, P. S. Anbarganj, District Kanpur Nagar. The tenancy was given to Sri Abdul Gani, father-in-law as far back as in the year 1944 by the then owner of the house M/s. Khushal Chandra Narayan Das. After the death of Abdul Gani, father-in-law of petitioner No. 1, her husband inherited the tenancy.
(3.) ACCORDING to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings for declaration of vacancy under Section 12-C of the Act were initiated on the application of one Mohd. Yunus who filed an application for allotment of the accommodation which was inspected by the Rent Control Inspector. A report dated 23-2-2005 is said to have been submitted by him inter alia that petitioner is not residing in House in dispute and that the report has been submitted by Rent Control Inspector without any notice to the petitioners in derogation of the procedure provided as provided under Section 8 (2) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has reported that the petitioner is deliberately keeping the disputed premises in locked and has shifted her material effects to her own house just behind the house in dispute where she is living with her family. The Courts below have also given a finding that Provisions of Section 8 were complied with as the petitioners after refusal of notices initially, have been served by RPAD and thereafter by publication also had filed their objections in this regard.;