- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to issue a writ, order or direction in the na ture of certiorari quashing the order dated 3. 5. 1999 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun (for short R. C. and E. O.) (Annexure 17 to the writ petition), whereby the learned R. C. and E. O. has notified the vacancy in re spect of the three chamber shop/godown situate on the ground-floor of property No. 132/1/2, Lakhi Bagh, Dehradun and fixed the case for 17-5-1999 for consid eration of release and allotment.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the present writ petition are that, according to the petitioners, they are tenants of the property in dispute since 1970 and the respondent no. 2 is the landlady and owner of the disputed property. Proceed ings for eviction of the petitioner-tenants were started on intimation under Sec tion 15 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act 1972 (for short the Act) on the ground that petitioner no. 1 has sublet the premises to Sri Shiv Kumar, peti tioner no. 2. Consequently, a release ap plication under Section 16 (1 ) (b) of the Act was filed by the landlady for release of the accommodation on the ground that respondent no. 2 had purchased the premises on 23- 12-1991, which was duly registered. It was alleged that the godown on the ground floor has been sublet to petitioner no. 2 Shiv Kumar, hence he is in illegal occupation of the shop in dispute the R. C. and E. O. directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit his report, who filed the report mentioning therein that on the ground floor, there exists three-chamber shop. The said shop was given on rent to Rajendra Prasad and at the time of inspection, petitioner no. 2 Shiv Kumar was found in occupation of the shop in the name and style M/s Shiv Kumar Ashok Kumar. It was also reported by the Rent Con trol Inspector that Shiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar are not the family mem bers of tenant Rajendra Prasad. Accord ingly recommendation was made to ini tiate proceeding under Section 12 of the Act. The R. C. and E. O. issued notices to the landlady, tenant and the occu pants to submit their version. Shiv Kumar and Ashok Kumar filed their objection and also filed affidavit of Shiv Kumar. In support of the case of occu pants, affidavits of Rajendra Prasad, Sri Sumit Prasad Jain, Hukam Chandra Jain, Jai Prakash, Sri Suresh Chandra Goyal, Rakesh Kumar and Lal Chandra etc. were filed. The occupants also filed documentary evidence in support of their business including letter of Regional Food Controller Garhwal Mandal and registra tion under Shops Act and the licence issued by Food and Supply Department etc. The occupants also contended that the property earlier belonged to Susheel Chandra Jain etc. and admitted that by the sale deed dated 23-12-1991, the re spondent no. 2 is the owner and land lady of the property in dispute. It was denied that Rajendra Prasad had sublet the shop to them to gain illegally. It was denied that Rajendra Prasad was in oc cupation of the shop in question. It was alleged that they are in occupation of the disputed shop since 1970 as is clear from the sale deed of the property. The landlady had filed the application for release to put undue pressure on them to vacate the premises. On the other hand, the landlady respondent no. 2 filed her own affidavit and the affidavits of former landlord Satish Chand Jain and that of Brijmohan. Affidavit of one Kulwant Singh was also filed, but he again filed his affidavit and stated that he had no personal knowledge about the occupa tion and tenancy of the disputed prop erty no. 132.
(3.) THE R. C. and E. O. heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Ultimately, the R. C. and E. O. came to the conclusion that the petitioner occupants were not recog nized as tenants either by the former landlord or by the present landlady. THE petitioners also failed to prove that they had been in occupation of the disputed premises prior to 5-7-1976 by the per mission/consent of. former landlord. It was concluded that the petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Act. THE R. C. and E. O. has held that the petitioners were in occupation of the disputed premises after the enforcement of the Act with out any legal allotment order and the property is liable to be declared as va cant. Accordingly the impugned order dated 3-5-1999 was passed. Aggrieved by the order dated 3-5-1999, the petitioners have filed the present with petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was re ceived by transfer to this Court.;