- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 28-7-1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar, respon dent No. 1 whereby he declared the vacan cy in respect of shop No. 35 situate on the ground floor in house No. 126/196 in Mohalla Juhi Hamirpur Road, Kanpur Nagar.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that father of the petitioner was tenant of the shop in question. After death of his father he in herited the tenancy. In the year 1985, he formed a society known as Krishna Vidya Mandir. This society started running a primary school. THE teachers were employed by the society. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for allotment of the disputed accommodation on the allega tion that it has been sublet and school is being run in the premises in question and it is declared as vacant. Notices were issued to the landlord- respondent No. 2. He also pleaded that the accommodation in ques tion should be treated as vacant. THE petitioner filed objection and denied that he has vacated the accommodation in question. THE Rent Control Inspector sub mitted a report on 28-8- 1995 that the premises in question was locked. THE petitioner filed objection and again Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises in question on 22-12-1996 and submitted a report that the petitioner was earlier carry ing on cloth business. Later on he started running a school and produced the relevant certificates of Krishna Vidya Mandir. He took the statement of the petitioner that he was carrying on different business on different times. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer gave notice to the landlord- respondent No. 2 and also heard the petitioner and respondent No. 3. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner had given the possession of this premises in question to Krishna Vidya Mandir Society and such society shall be treated as different person and, therefore, the ac commodation in question shall be treated as vacant. THE petitioner has challenged these orders in the present writ petition. I have heard Sri K. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sunita Sachan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is still in occupa tion of the premises in question and respondent No. 1 acted illegally in declar ing the accommodation in question as vacant. It is contended that the petitioner was the Manager of the School which was being run in the name of Krishna Vidya Mandir and later on coaching institution is being run in the name of Krishna Coaching Organisation which is an unregistered body. It is not denied that the shop in question was let out to the father of the petitioner. In the year 1986 it was got registered under the Societies Registra tion Act, 1860. The society was running a Nursery and Primary School and a pamphlet was also circulated to the public, a copy of which has been annexed as An-nexure-6 to the writ petition. Copy of registration certificate has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The papers were also sent to the Basic Educa tion Officer, Kanpur Nagar for recognis ing the school run by it which is clear from the letter of the District Basic Education Officer, Kanpur Nagar, Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act is a juristic person. Once the accom modation has been permitted to be oc cupied by the society, the petitioner can not urge that he was office bearer or mem ber of the society and he continued to occupy it under his personal capacity. ' Clause (b) of Section 12 of the Act provides that if the tenant has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, the accommodation shall be deemed as vacant. Sub-section (2) provides that in the case of non- residential building, where a tenant carrying on busi ness in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. Section 12 (1) and (2) reads as follows: " 12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases.- (1) A landlord or tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if- (a) he has substantially removed his ef fects therefrom, or (b) he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family, or (c) in the case of a residential building, he as well as member of his family have taken up residence, not being temporary residence, else where. (2) In the case of non-residential building, where a tenant carrying on business in the build ing admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner or a new partner, as the case may be, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building. " The petitioner having permitted to occupy the accommodation in question by a society which was running the school, it will be treated that the petitioner per mitted another person to occupy the tenanted accommodation and it shall be deemed as vacant.
(3.) THE next submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that later on coaching of the students was being done under the name of Krishna Coaching Or ganisation which is not a registered society. He has placed reliance on a pamphlet (Annexure-5) which states that coaching will be done between the period 7 to 10 a. m. and 4 to 8 p. m. and the address given is 'krishna Vidya Mandir, 127/196, Juhi Hamirpur Road, Kanpur'. This indi cates that Krishna Vidya Mandir con tinues and in addition to it coaching was also being done in that premises. Further, this pamphlet does not indicate the date of issuance of such pamphlet. Even assuming that later on the petitioner did not permit the society to run the school still once the petitioner having permitted the society to run the school, the provision of Section 12 (b) of the Act is attracted. The last submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 had permitted the petitioner to run the school and subsequently he cannot turn and say that the society was running the school and on that ground he be declared as unauthorised occupant. He has referred to the letter dated 25-10-1980 filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has not shown that this letter was placed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and it was proved. Secondly, this letter indicates that the petitioner was running a private coaching m the year 1980. The society was registered in the year 1985. This letter is not relevant as after 1985 the society was running the school.;