- (1.) THE dispute in the present writ petitions arises out of an application for release filed by the landlord in respect of the tenanted shop. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said shop was allotted to Shail kakkar by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi by the order dated 19th August, 1993 and thereafter possession of the shop was also delivered to her but an application was filed by Mohd. Ayub under section 12 of the u. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a prayer that the shop be declared vacant. It was inter alia stated in the said application that he had purchased the property by a Registered sale deed on 18. 10. 2000 and that the earlier landlord had given the shop to Ramji Kakkar without any allotment order. This application was led against Ramji Kakkar and the earlier landlord Vinay prakash. In the said case petitioner Shail Kakkar filed an application for impleadment on the ground that she was the allottee of the shop and she also prayed for permission to file evidence. This application was rejected by the rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi by the order dated 9th September, 2004. This order has been challenged by Shail Kakkar in Writ Petition No. 13190 of 2005.
(2.) AFTER the rejection of the aforesaid impleadment application, the Rent control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi proceeded to decide the application filed under section 12 of the Act. Ramji Kakkar raised an objection that the said application was not maintainable. Mohd. Ayub then filed an application on 11th October, 2004 under section 16 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction officer, Varanasi rejected the application filed under section 12 of the Act and proceeded to decide the application filed by the landlord under section 16 of the Act. Vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, varanasi by the order dated 17th February, 2005. Ramji Kakkar and Shail kakkar have sought the quashing of this order in Writ Petition No. 13050 of 2005.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord and have perused the material available on record.;