- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 24-12-1986 declarating the premises in question as vacant, order dated 12-3-1987 releasing the disputed premises in favour of the landlord-respondents, the order dated 10-5-1995 passed on the review ap plication and the order dated 7-11-1997 dismissing the revision.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Chandmal was the tenant of the shop in question. Two applications for allotment were filed on 16-6-1986. THE Inspector was called for submitting the report who sub mitted the report that the shop remains locked. THE petitioner is the son of Chandmal who was a tenant. THE notice was given to him but it was shown to be served by affixation. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer considering the report of the Inspector declared it vacant vide order dated 24-12-1986. THE landlord- respon dents filed application for release. THE accommodation was released in favour of the landlord-respondents on 12-3-1987. The petitioner filed an application for review. This application was rejected as the petitioner had not impleaded the heirs of the landlady, Smt. Damyanti Devi who had already died. The petitioner filed revision. The revision was dismissed by respondent No. 1 on 7-11-1997. These or ders have been challenged in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for this respondents.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that admittedly Chandmal was a tenant. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer has issued notice to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the son of the tenant but the notice has been taken to have been served by affixation. It was stated by him that he was never served with a notice. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the order declaring the shop in question as vacant on the ground that there was a report that it remains closed. It is contended that firstly, the petitioner was not served with a notice and secondly, the accommodation could not be declared vacant simply on the ground that the shop was found to be locked unless there was specific finding that the tenant has removed his effects as contemplated under Section 12 (l) (b) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Coun sel for the respondents, contended that the petitioner had filed an application for review under Section 16 (5) of the Act but the landlady had died and he had not filed application for substitution. It is further contended that the accommodation has been released in favour of the landlord-respondents after declaration of the vacancy. The petitioner was always chal lenging the order of vacancy. Respondent No. 1 had dismissed the revision on 7-11-1997 and thereafter he has filed the writ petition.;