S.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against declaration of vacancy of accommodation under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972). The dispute in the petition pertains to ground floor of House No. 7, Sunder Bagh, Lucknow, owned by Sri Roshan Lal Sahgal, Opposite Party No. 3.
(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner Om Prakash Khanna was tenant of the disputed accommodation on behalf of Sri Roshan Lal Sahgal. It appears that tenancy was created in his favour some time in June, 1965. The petitioner was transferred to Calcutta. According to his statement in paragraph 3 of the petition, this transfer took place in July, 1983. Opposite Party No. 2 Sri Udai Pratap Singh made an application to Opposite Party No. 1 for allotment of the accommodation in dispute on the basis that the same had fallen vacant by the transfer of the petitioner to Calcutta and his taking up permanent residence there. On the basis of this application, report was obtained from the Senior Inspector who submitted the same on 12-8-1985. The Senior Inspector confirmed that the petitioner had been transferred to Calcutta and the premises was lying in locked condition. The petitioner filed has own affidavit and also the affidavits of the landlord Sri Roshan Lal Sahgal and of certain witnesses in support of his plea that he has not permanently shifted to Calcutta. Sri Udai Pratap Singh, opposite Singh, Opposite Party No. 2, filed his own affidavit and reiterated that the accommodation in question was to be treated as having fallen vacant under Section 12 (1) (c) of the aforesaid Act.
(3.) Opposite Party No. 1 has accepted the case of Sri Udai Pratap Singh that the premises has fallen vacant. While recording the finding of vacancy he has referred to the relevant evidence on record, including the Senior Inspector's report and the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties. He has observed that the petitioner has been transferred to Calcutta where he is working and his wife too has taken up employment at Calcutta and his children have also taken admission in Educational Institutions at Calcutta and on this basis he has come to the conclusion that the accommodation in question is to be deemed to have fallen vacant under clause (c) of Section 12 (1).;