- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is tenant's petition. The case of the petitioner is that he is tenant of two rooms, common latrine/bathroom, courtyard and a verandah in House No. 8/100 Arya Nagar, district Kanpur Nagar. In support of his case that he is tenant of the premises, in dispute, the petitioner has relied upon rent receipts dated 14. 1. 1961 and from February, 1984 to July, 1984 as well as electricity bills, appended as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. It appears that respondent No. 3 moved an application for allotment of the aforesaid house. In pursuance of the said application, the premises in dispute was inspected by the Rent Control Inspector, who submitted report dated 24. 4. 2006 against which, the petitioner-tenant filed objection dated 2. 6. 2006. The landlord moved application dated 10. 6. 2006 alongwith counter-affidavit that the application dated 9. 6. 2006 filed by the petitioner may be rejected with cost in absence of any evidence. The petitioner filed objection dated 20. 8. 2006 inter alia that the house is in the name of his mother Smt. Ram Kali wife of Sri Rameshwar and that he is living separately from his parents. The case of the petitioner is that despite evidence available on record, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy vide impugned order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the vacancy vide order dated 31. 8. 2006 in the accommodation in dispute and released it in favour of the landlord vide order dated 20. 9. 2006 which are impugned in the writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition: " (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certlorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31. 8. 2006 and 20. 9. 2006 (Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to regularize the tenancy of the petitioner under the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent for not evicting the petitioner from the disputed accommodation in pursuance of judgment and orders dated 31. 8. 2006 and 20. 9. 2006 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition ). (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. (v) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. " The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that there is evidence available on record to prove that at present the petitioner is residing and finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is illegal to the extent that he is not residing in the premises that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has illegally released the disputed accommodation in favour of the respondent No. 3 that while order declaring the vacancy is illegal and the petitioner is residing in the premises in dispute, so it cannot be released in favour of the landlord and the tenancy of the petitioner is liable to be regularized under Section 14 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 that the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is wholly illegal, arbitrary as he has illegally recorded the finding that the petitioner is not residing in the disputed accommodation while there is series of evidence available on record establishing that the family of the petitioner is residing in the disputed accommodation that house No. 128/1083 Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar has been purchased by mother of the petitioner and petitioner is not living with her that petitioner is tenant in the disputed accommodation ever since 1960 that the accommodation in possession of the petitioner has wrongly been described in the impugned order as the petitioner is in occupation of only one room and that the question of declaration of vacancy and release of accommodation has been referred to a larger Bench for consideration.;