- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10th September, 1997 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, declar ing the vacancy of premises in dispute, and the order dated 16- 2-1998 releasing the premises in dispute and order dated 4-5-1998 passed by the Revisional Court dis missing the revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the landlord- Respondents 3 and 4 pur chased the premises No. 389-112, Tula Ram Bagh, Allahabad from the previous owner Sri R. V. Dawson. THE landlords filed application for release of the disputed premises under Section 16 (l) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as the Act) on the allega tions that the petitioner was given accom modation in question for a period of two months as the petitioner was having dire need of accommodation and he was having close relation to the family of landlords. THE petitioner had not obtained any allot ment order in his favour. Though the ac commodation in question were covered under the provisions of the Act it was alleged that the application was filed under Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act on the ground that the landlords required the premises for personal need, viz. , a residen tial purpose as they were residing in small portion of building No. 12, Madhwapur, Allahabad which was owned by one Shri T. K. Ghosh. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner was let out the premises in ques tion on monthly rent of Rs. 500 per month, by filing his objection. It was also stated that the landlords wanted to enhance the rent and at that time, it was not disclosed that the premises in question does come under the Act. It was denied that the landlords need was bond fide. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order on 19-2-1997 directing the parties to lead evidence on the question as to whether the accommodation in question was covered by the Act and whether the accommodation may be deemed as vacant. The landlords filed quinquennial assess ment for the year 1955-60, 1960-65 and 1989-97 which indicated that the house in question was assessed in these years. The tenant- petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that house was not covered by the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 10-9-1997 declared the accommodation in question as vacant. He further after con sidering the need of the landlords released the accommodation in question vide order dated 26-2-1998 holding that landlords need was bona fide and genuine for the house in question. The petitioner filed revision against these orders and Respon dent No. 1 has dismissed the revision vide order dated 4-5-1998. These orders have been challenged in this Writ Petition. Ave heard ShriRajesh Tandon,learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accommoda tion in question was wrongly declared as vacant. It was burden of proof on the landlords to establish that the accom modation in question was covered by the Act. As noted above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer permitted the parties to lead the evidence on the question as to whether the house in question was covered by the provisions of the Act. THE landlords submitted the quinquennial assessment for the years 1955-60, 1960-65 and 1989-97, which indicate that the house in ques tion was assessed. It was thus established that the accommodation in question was constructed prior to year 1972. THE petitioner did not lead any evidence con trary to it. THE petitioner was in occupa tion of the accommodation did not lead any evidence contrary to it. THE petitioner was in occupation of the accommodation in question without any allotment. His possession was unauthorised as provided under Section 13 of the Act and also as held by Full Bench of this Court in Nootan Kumar and Others v. IInd Addl. District Judge, Banda and Others, 1993 (22) ALR 437. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the need of landlord was not bona fide. Firstly, it is a question of fact. On perusal of the im pugned orders, I do not find any infirmity in the orders. Secondly, the prospective allottee, a person being unauthorised oc cupant cannot raise any objection to the bona fide need of the landlords after the accommodation is declared as vacant.;