D.P.SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) PREMISES no.13/183, Parmath, Kanpur Nagar consisting of a room, verandah, kitchen, latrine, situated in the first floor of the building was allegedly in the tenancy of Late Shambhu Dayal Shukla of which the petitioner was the landlord. Pradip Bajpai, a prospective allottee, moved an application with the allegation that Shambhu Dayal had shifted to premises no.13/77, Parmath in Kanpur and has given the possession thereof to her daughter-in-law Smt. Ranjana Shukla, who was illegally occupying it without any order of allotment and therefore claiming deemed vacancy, sought its allotment. The Inspector submitted its inspection report dated 3.6.2006 that Sri Shambhu Dayal had vacated the premises in 2004 and it was in the occupation of Smt. Ranjana Shukla. After notice to all, the Rent Controller vide a detailed order dated 27.2.2008 held that the premises was deemed vacant and he fixed a date for considering the release application and the allotment application. Subsequently, the Rent Controller vide its order dated 22.4.2008 released the premises in favour of the petitioner and rejected the allotment application. Aggrieved, the respondents 2 to 6 preferred a revision before the District Judge, Kanpur which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 29th May 2008. It is urged that the revisional court travelled beyond its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and ignoring his categorical findings of fact has illegally assumed the facts which were neither pleaded nor proved before it and further made unwarranted remarks against the petitioner and the Rent Controller.
(3.) THE Rent Controller in his detailed order has relied upon several documents to show that Shambhu Dayal in fact had vacated the premises in 2004 and handed over its possession to his daughter-in-law and shifted to 13/77 Parmath, Kanpur. It relied upon his own admission while executing a vakalatnama in July 2004 in favour of his lawyer in a injunction suit no. 586 of 2004. It also relied upon the fact that his daughter-in-law had applied for and obtained a new electric connection in her own name declaring that she was residing in her own right in the disputed premises. It also relied upon the application of the daughter-in-law to the Area Rationing Officer for deleting her name from the ration card of Shambhu Dayal and seeking ration card in her own independent name and mentioning her residence at 13/183 Parmath, Kanpur. It took notice of five yearly assessment record of the local authority which showed that his name as tenant did not find place after 2004 in the premises. These documents could neither be sufficiently explained away nor rebutted either by Ranjana Shukla or her father-in-law Shambhu Dayal. The case of Shambhu Dayal was that he was a Pujari and he used to go there every morning and return in the evening but he had not changed his residence. In the revision, the learned Judge apart from casting unwarranted aspersion on the petitioner and the Rent Controller, relying upon the ground of revision held that though Shambhu Dayal may have been allotted a room in the temple that would not result in any deemed vacancy.;