- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun, whereby he declared the accommodation in question as vacant under the provisions of Section 12 of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) Respondent no. 2 is landlady of the accommodation in question. It was let out to the petitioner by her in the year 1984. Respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 12 of the Act for declaring the disputed accommodation as vacant alleging that the petitioner was a tenant of the accommodation in question on monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. He was transferred to Hindola district Tehri and on transfer he has taken a residence at Chaukuwala but he has ot the disputed house locked. It was stated that the accommmodation in question be declared as vacant and be released in her favour as she needed it bonafide for residential purpose. The petitioner filed objection. It was stated that the house in question was constructed in the year 1982 and it was assessed for the first time by the Municipal Board in the year 1982. He denied that he has removed his belongings from the said premises. He, however, did not deny that he was transferred to Hindola, district Tehri Garhwal. The Rent Control Inspector submitted the report stating that petitioner has been transferred but he has kept the house locked. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order dated 15th May 1998 found that the petitioner has been transferred to Hindola, district Tehri Garwal, he has kept the house locked. It was further found that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises in question without any allotment order and his possession was unauthorised. He declared the accommodation in question as vacant. The petitioner has challenged this order in the present writ petition.
(3.) I Have heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.K.Arora , learned counsel for the respondent.;