- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 4-4-1988 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 28-11-1990 allotting the accommodation in question to respondent No. 3 and the order dated 24-12-1998 passed by respon dent No. 1, dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that father of the petitioner was tenant of the disputed accommodation. He built up his own house No. 124/120, C-Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur; An application was filed by the landlord for release of the disputed accommodation on the allegation that Sundar Lal Srivastava, the tenant having built his own louse and having shifted there, the accommodation in question be declared as vacant. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after making an inquiry found that Sundar Lal Srivastava had built up his own house No. 124/120, C-Block, Govind Nagar, Kanpur and having shifted there the accommodation in question is vacant. THE application for release filed by the landlord was rejected and on the find ing that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide allotted to him vide order dated 28-11- 1990. THE petitioner preferred a revision against the said order. THE revision has been dismissed vide im pugned order dated 24-12-1998. I have heard Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. N. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent. The main thrust of argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the accommodation in question could not be taken as vacant. It is not denied that his father Sundar Lal Srivastava was tenant of the disputed premises. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition he has categorically stated that his father was tenant of the premises in question. It is also not denied that his father had constructed his own house. The accommodation in question had been declared as vacant on the ground that his father has constructed his own house and has shifted there. If a tenant builds his own house in the same city, the accommoda tion shall be treated as vacant under sub section (3) of Section 12 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. There; is no averment that his father did not build his house or shifted therein.
(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed accommodation since the year 1975 and his possession shall be deemed as regularised under Section 14 of the Act. His father as tenant of the accommodation in question. After his father had built up his house, the petitioner who was living with his father cannot be taken as tenant in his own right/section 14 of the Act is not applicable in these circumstances. It is next contended that the Rent Control Inspector submitted the report without complying Rule 8 of the rules framed under the Act. The landlord had not let out the accommodation in question to the petitioner. His father was a tenant. He has not challenged the order. It is fur ther not alleged that his father had not1 built up the house. On the admitted facts that his father was tenant and he had built up his house and shifted therein, the ac commodation in question shall be treated as vacant. Even it the petitioner was not given a notice by the Rent Control Inspec tor before submitting the report, on the admitted facts the accommodation in question shall be taken as vacant.;