MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Hemant Kumar for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.4; and perused the record.
(2.) By impugned order dated 15.12.2011, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar declared an accommodation comprising one room, a small kitchen and gallery situated on the ground floor of House No. 61/129 vacant. Whereas by impugned order dated 22.03.2012, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer released the said premises in favour of landlord-respondent Anil Kumar Gupta. And by impugned order dated 12.01.2017 the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, dismissed the Rent Revision No. 26 of 2012 filed by Smt. Ramapati, who is now represented by her son Suresh Kumar Maurya (the petitioner), against the order of release as well as declaration of vacancy.
(3.) The facts over which the petitioner does not raise any dispute are: (a) the original tenant of the accommodation in dispute was one Sheetalu Kacchi; (b) that in 1978 Sheetalu Kacchi left the premises; and (c) that, Smt. Rampati (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner), had been in possession and had also paid rent to one of its co-owners, with effect from 01.01.1978 and, thereafter, the rent had also been deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;