ABHINAVA UPADHYA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) All these writ petitions involve common question of fact and law, hence they are decided together. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order dated 19.7.2013 passed under section 16 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It is submitted that an application was filed by one Dheeraj who is a third person under section 12(1)(b) of the Act of 1972 for deemed vacancy. The claim of the respondent no.2 in the present case is that the original lessee was Oriental Insurance Corporation but Oriental Insurance Corporation has now shifted its office to some other premises and the mother of the petitioner was put into possession of the property in question but no allotment order has been passed in her favour nor any allotment letter has been shown by her.
(3.) Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that section 14 of the Act of 1972 provides that in case the occupation is of prior to 1976, the occupant will be a deemed lessee. He submits that throughout the entire proceedings no material has been shown that the mother of the petitioner was in occupation prior to 1976 and also no order has been shown to indicate that the petitioner or his mother was allotted this premises. Therefore, the order passed under section 12 of the Act of 1972 is perfectly justified with regard to the deemed vacancy and now the order under section 16(1)(b) has been passed. It is submitted that the petitioner has remedy under section 18 of the Act of 21972.;