POONAM SRIVASTAV,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Atul Dayal, counsel for petitioner and Smt. Anita Srivastava, counsel for contesting respondent.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits, supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit as well as supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. As agreed between parties, the instant writ petition is finally decided at the stage of admission itself. Controversy arises from an order dated 6.8.2004 passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, declaring vacancy in Case No.46 of 2001 Manik Chandra Tiwari Vs. Gopi Nath Dubey. A copy of the order is annexed as annexure no.16 to the writ petition. The disputed accommodation which consists of one room along with other amenities, was allotted to petitioner by means of an allotment order dated 13.7.1977.
(3.) THE entire premises bearing municipal no.123/516 (old), 123/931 (new), Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar, consists of a number of small portions in occupation of different tenants. This premises was purchased by present landlord on 12.2.1990. Petitioner was paying rent at the rate of Rs.30/- per month. Proceedings before Rent Control and Eviction Officer commenced on an application given by landlord-respondent under Section 15(1) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 2001 intimating vacancy. Proceedings commenced on the basis of aforesaid application. Rent Control Inspector submitted his report after inspection in accordance with law on 27.6.2001.;