Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the Order dated 27.2.1997 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, Respondent No. 1 declaring the accommodation in question as vacant. The petitioner was a tenant of a portion of premises No. 43/168, Chowk Sarafa, Kanpur, one Satyendra Swarup Saxena filed application for allotment of the disputed accommodation on the ground that the petitioner has taken another premises No. 43/146, Nariyan Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, or rent and is residing there. He alleged that the disputed accommodation shall be treated as vacant as the petitioner has acquired another accommodation.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 called for a report from Senior Rent Control Inspector. After he submitted a report, the notice was issued to the petitioner. He filed objection. It was stated by him that he has not shifted to house No. 43/146, Nariyan Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, and secondly it is being used for non -residential purpose. The parties led evidence. Respondent No. 1 recorded a finding that premises No. 43/146, Nariyan Bazar, Kanpur is a residential building and the petitioner is residing there, he declared the disputed accommodation as vacant by the impugned Order dated 27.2.1997. Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed this finding. I have perused the impugned order. Respondent No. 1 has relied upon various affidavits which were filed by the petitioner in another proceeding wherein he had admitted that he was residing in house No. 43/146. The documents relied upon by respondent No. 1 are affidavits of the petitioner filed in suit No. 2330 of 1994 i.e., (i) affidavit of the petitioner dated 6.1.1995; (ii) application dated 6.1.1995; (iii) rejoinder affidavit dated 19.12.1994 and (iv) rejoinder affidavit dated 16.12.1994. Besides these documents respondent No. 1 also relied upon the voters list wherein the petitioner and his family members were shown to have been residing in house No. 43/146, Nariyan Bazar, Kanpur.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments in those affidavits were incorrect and the petitioner had explained this fact. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not placed nay material could show that what explanation was given by him in respect of the averments made by him in those affidavits regarding his residence in house No. 43/146, Nariyan Bazar, Kanpur. The admission made by him was binding. There is no clinching evidence that the assertions made by the petitioner in those affidavits were incorrect. The finding recorded by respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any manifest error of law. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.;