- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Building in dispute which consists of two rooms on the ground floor of building No. 119/585 (new) Darshanpurva, Kanpur Nagar was declared vacant by Rent Control and Eviction Officer/a. C. M. (VI), Kanpur Nagar on 30. 5. 2005 through order passed in case No. 38 of 2004 Dinesh Kumar Dixit v. Ram Sumer. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Vijai Laxmi is landlady of the building in dispute. Thereafter it was allotted in favour of respondent No. 1-Dinesh Kumar Dixit on whose allotment appli cation proceedings had been initiated. Through this writ petition both these orders have been challenged. R. C. & E. O. found that previously Som Nath was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute and he illegally delivered posses sion to the petitioner who was not his family member. Petitioner asserted that Som Nath the pervious tenant was his brother-in-law (wife's brother ). Petitioner filed certain receipts but neither they contained his name nor ac knowledgment of receipt of rent by the landlord. In one receipt itself the name of Som Nath was mentioned. That receipt was dated 3. 5. 1977.
(2.) EVEN on the basis of the said receipts vacancy was established. The pe titioner completely failed to prove that he was accepted as tenant by the land lady. According to his own case at least until 1977 Som Nath was the tenant. Accordingly even if thereafter he was included as tenant by the landlady, it was unauthorized letting hence vacancy was there. The petitioner did not men tion the date or time since when he was accepted as tenant by the landlord. Sister's husband is not included in the definition of family. Accordingly, there is not merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. Tenant-petitioner is granted ten months time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the R. C. & E. O. to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of ten months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the prop erty in dispute to the landlady-respondent. 2. For this period of ten months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 15,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the R. C. & E. O. and shall immediately be paid to the landlady-respondent. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-peti tioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 15,000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vaca tion. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 15,000/- the house in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of ten months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per month since after ten months till actual vacation. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord/allottee to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and initiate execution proceedings.
(3.) HOWEVER, it is necessary to mention that in the allotment order- Annexure-12 to the writ petition no rent has been fixed. By virtue of definition of lease provided under section 105 T. P. Act there cannot be any lease or tenancy without rent. Under section 16 (9) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 it is necessary for R. C. & E. O. to direct the allottee to pay presumptive rent. Accordingly, it is directed that when possession is delivered to allot tee-respondent No. 1 he shall also pay Rs. 1,500/- per month as rent to the landlady-respondent No. 2. Writ Petition Dismissed. .;