SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 16.8.2007 passed by District Supply Officer, Meerut in Case No.1 of 2007 (Annexure 4 to writ petition). Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess petitioner from premises in dispute. It appears that respondent who is landlord made an application under Section 12 of the Act on the ground that petitioner who was tenant of residential accommodation bearing Municipal No. 5/1 of 2001 (Old) New No.59, Dev Nagar, Mission Compound, Meerut at a monthly rent of Rs.85/- since 1962 of which respondent No.3 is the owner and landlord. The ground taken in the said application was that as petitioner is not residing in the said accommodation and he has substantially removed his affects, therefore, a vacancy should be declared. Rent Control and Eviction Inspector on the direction issued by competent authority has submitted a report that at the time of inspection, it has been found that he is living in the said accommodation. Rent Control and Eviction Officer after perusal of the record has found that certain documents have been filed and electricity bill from 20.4.2007 to 21.6.2007 has been filed which does not indicate that electricity is being consumed continuously. A finding has also been recorded that no bills prior to this date has been submitted. Taking into consideration all these facts, Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide its order dated 16.8.2007 has declared the vacancy.
(3.) SRI A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for respondent has raised a preliminary objection that present writ petition is not maintainable in view of averment made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, which is being quoted below:- "3. That before giving parawise reply to the writ petition it is pertinent to mention here that the present writ petition has not been filed by Harish Chand Ahuja, rather it has been filed by some imposter to whom the out going tenant wants to tender the possession of the house in dispute. This fact is apparent that in the array of the writ petition the percentage of respondent no.2, has not been mentioned and the father's name of respondent no.3, has been mentioned that Harbans Lal Gupta, while he was the maternal Grand Father, of the respondent No.2 and 3. Had the writ petition would have been filed by Mr. Ahuja, the percentage must have been correctly mentioned since he was old tenant and aware about the family of the answering respondents. It appears that Mr. Ahuja, after taking money transferred the litigation to some other person. Even he has not filed his affidavit in the writ petition and affidavit of some Satish Kumar Chand has been filed who has alleged himself as the Pairokar of the petitioner." ;