S.D.Agarwala - (1.) -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE property in dispute is a house, situate in Sabzi Mandiganj, Moradabad. THE petitioner is the tenant. Sri Gopal, respondent no. 3, is the landlord. THE property in dispute consists of a room and a Kothari. Sri Gopal, the landlord, alleged that the western portion of the property in possession of Karam Chand, the tenant, is in occupation of Hansraj, respondent no. 4, who carries on the business of general merchandise. THE allegation was that Karam Chand had permitted the said western portion to be occupied by Hansraj, who is not a member of his family, and, consequently, the western portion be deemed to be vacant in the eye of law. It was further prayed that since the property in dispute was to be deemed to be vacant and the need of Sri Gopal, the landlord, was genuine and bona fide, therefore, it be released in his favour. After the making of this application, the Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises in dispute and submitted his report on 13th November, 1980 Thereafter, by an order dated 22nd September, 1982, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after examining the evidence on the record, held the portion of the property in occupation of Karam Chand to be deemed to be vacant and, thereafter, on 11th March, 1983, the release application was allowed and the accommodation consisting of a room and a Kothari was released in favour of Sri Gopal for the purposes of his residence and the members of his family. Aggrieved by the decision dated 11th March, 1983, a revision was Died. The revhional authority by an order dated 10th August, 1983, dismissed the revision. Karam Chand, the petitioner, has now challenged the orders dated 10th August, 1983, and the release order dated 11th March, 1983. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the landlord respondent.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of release as well as the revisional order is invalid on the ground that the property could not have been deemed to be vacant, as the ingredients necessary for declaring it to be vacant were not in existence in the instant case. Section 12 (1) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is quoted below : "12 (1). A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if- (a) .................. (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or;