R.P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, dated 7.10.88 dismissing the revision and upholding the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 2, rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and thus upholding the order declaring vacancy and releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlady Smt. Satyawati Misra, respondent No. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Satyawati Misra, respondent No. 3, who is the landlady of the disputed accommodation, filed an application for declaring vacancy and ordering the release of the accommodation in her favour on the ground that the previous tenant Jagannath Sana had already vacated the accommodation and the petitioners were unauthorised occupants in the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants in the disputed accommodation and declared vacancy. Thereafter, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer finding that the need of the disputed accommodation of the landlady was bona fide and genuine, ordered the release of the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under Section 16(5) of the Act for recalling the order declaring vacancy and ordering release of the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlady. This application was however, rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thereafter the petitioners filed a revision before respondent No. 1 which was also dismissed and hence the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners were in occupation of the disputed accommodation since July, 1975 with the consent of the landlady and hence the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their tenancy under Section 14 of the Act and they are not unauthorised occupants of the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the (Vth Additional District Judge, respondent No. I, have gone through the evidence on record and have disbelieved the version of the petitioners that they are in occupation of the disputed premises since 1975 with the consent of the landlady The two Courts below have held that the petitioners are in possession as unauthorised occupants and on these findings ordered the declaration of vacancy and finding the need of the landlady for the disputed accommodation bona fide and genuine, ordered the release of accommodation in favour of the respondent No. 3. It is not open to this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction to re -appraise the evidence and come to finding contrary to the finding recorded by the subordinate Courts. The petitioners have not filed any receipt or any ration card to show that they were in occupation of the disputed accommodation since the year 1975. The respondents No. 1 and 2 have applied their mind to the evidence on record and have held that the petitioners have not been able to prove that they were in possession since the year 1975 and consequently the petitioners having been found to be unauthorised occupants, the impugned orders of declaration of vacancy and release of the accommodation was passed against them. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed a copy of the voter's list and has laid much stress on this. He contended that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not considered the voter's list while the IVth Additional District Judge, respondent No. 1, has observed that a perusal of the true copy of the voter's list indicates that it does not relate to the revisionist. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed a copy of the voter list and laid much emphasis that it relates to the revisionist However, respondents No. 1 and 2 have appraised the entire evidence including the affidavits filed by the parties and have held that the petitioners have failed to prove that they were in occupation of the disputed accommodation since 1975 and hence I see no illegality in the impugned orders passed declaring vacancy and ordering release of the accommodation in favour of the landlady, respondent No. 3. In the result, there are no merits in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.;