K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against a judgment of the Vlth Additional District Judge, Kanpur dated 31st May, 1976 dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner against a judgment of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
(2.) The dispute in this case is with respect to Quarter No. 10 Premises No. 118/23 Kaushalpuri, Kanpur. The accommodation consists of a room, a varandah, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and a courtyard. This building originally belonged to one Brij Kishore Agarwal. On 23-3-1973, Charan Singh, respondent No. 1 filed an application for the allotment of the accommodation on the allegation that since the petitioner had built his own house in Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur and had shifted to the said house after vacating the same, the disputed house was vacant. On this application, the Senior Inspector Rent Control was sent for inquiry who reported on 12-4-1973 that the accommodation in question had been locked by the petitioner. In 17-4-1973, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer notified the vacancy. Thereafter, on 21-4-1973 the petitioner filed an objection claiming that the premises was not vacant and that his son was residing therein. This objection came up for hearing before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 3rd May, 1973. On that date, the petitioner was absent whereas respondent No. I was present. The case was fixed for 5th May, 1973 for orders. On that date the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the accommodation to respondent No. 1.
(3.) On 10-5-1973, the petitioner filed an application under section 16(5)of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for setting aside the allotment order dated 5-5-1973 made in favour of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the same had not been made in accordance with law. In this application the petitioner alleged that he was carrying on the business at Chauk Kanpur in the name and style of "Kanpur Glass House" and had been maintaining the godown in the accommodation in question for the last six or seven years. It may be noted that the objection filed earlier on 21-4-1973 was different. He asserted in that objection that his son was in possession of the house. In this objection he claimed that the same was used tor business purposes.;