- (1.) J. C. Gupta, J. Both these writ peti tion Nos. 43480/97 and 8067/98 are taken up together.
(2.) WRIT Petition No. 43480/97 has been filed by the sitting tenant Madan Mohan against the order dated 9-5-97 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer-Respondent No. 1, while writ peti tion No. 8067/98 has been filed by the landlord against the order of the revisional court condoning the delay in filing the revision against the order of release made in favour of the landlord on the basis of the order declaring vacancy. Since the existence of order of release is dependent upon the order declaring vacancy, I take up writ petition No. 43480/97 first. For the purposes of disposal of these writ petitions, it is not necessary to narrate facts in detail excepting that un-disputably the petitioner has been tenant in the accommodation in question since 1955. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that even an order of allotment was made in his favour by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whose copy has been an nexed as Annexure-1. Though the said order was challenged by the landlord but thereafter a compromise was entered into between the parties and the landlord ac cepted the petitioner as his tenant.
(3.) THE proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer initiated on an application moved by the landlord whereby it was claimed that there has arisen a deemed vacancy under the provisions of Section 12 (4) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in as much as the petitioner Madan Mohan has left the accommodation in question and has sub-let the same. THE respondent No. 1 directed the Rent Control Inspector to make spot inspection and submit his report. Accord ingly the Inspector made inspection and submitted his report dated 16-12-96 wherein it was reported that the accom modation was lying locked and on enquiry it was informed to him that Madan Mohan has sub-let the accommodation to other persons as he has become very old. Notice is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner Madan Mohan and the same is said to have been served sufficiently upon him and when no objection was received, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order declared the accom modation vacant. I have heard Sri S. C. Tiwari Coun sel for the petitioner and Sri Vijai Bahadur for the landlord- respondent and with their consent both these writ petitions are dis posed of finally.;