V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) IN the present case, petitioner claims that he has been staying in the ground floor kothri numbered as 631/13 and also in the portion numbered as 631/11, which remained in the possession of the father of the peti­tioner. Petitioner has contended that approach to the first floor of the house is through the vacant portion. Petitioner has contended that he has been continu­ously paying rent to the landlady. It has been further contended that sale deed was executed on 9.5.1997 in favour of Indra Pal Sharma. After execution of sale deed notices were given for ensuring payment of rent. Petitioner has contended that thereafter, respondent No. 4 Sanjeev Kumar Sharma moved an applica­tion for allotment of premises No. 631/13 on ground floor, and when petitioner acquired knowledge in regard to aforesaid application, he filed his objection. Thereafter, order dated 29.11.2008 has been passed, declaring vacancy, against which present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by Indra Pal Sharma, disputing the claim set up by the petitioner. To the said counter affidavit, rejoinder affi­davit has been filed. After pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. At the point of time when hearing started, pursuant to order dated 27.8.2008, a Draft has been handed over to Sri Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, by the petitioner through his Counsel Sri S.S. Chauhan.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Chauhan, contended with vehemence that vacancy could not have been declared as has been done in the present case, as such order impugned is liable to be quashed.;