- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority declaring the accommodation in question as vacant.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 landlady, filed application alleging that premises No. 103/71, Colbnelganj, Kanpur which is ac commodation in question is vacant. This accommodation was originally under, the tenancy of father of the petitioners, name ly, Gyan Chandra. He died and thereafter his widow Smt. Sarojini Devi purchased two houses by registered sale deed. One is House No. 103/132, Colonelganj, Kanpur on 2nd March, 1983 and another House No. 103/134, Colonelganj, Kanpur on 5-6-1987. Thekent Control and Eviction Of ficer came to the conclusion that after the purchase of these houses by the mother of the petitioners and subsequent to her death, the petitioners inherited the aforesaid property hence the disputed premises should be deemed as vacant and accordingly he passed the impugned order 31-8- 1998 which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. I have heard Shri S. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for con testing respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the sale deed was not duly proved and it was not estab lished that the houses were purchased by Smt. Sarojini Devi. The two houses have been purchased by registered sale deed. The sale deeds have been executed in the name of mother of the petitioners. The petitioners never categorically denied that the sale deeds are fictitious. The finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that these properties were purchased by the mother of the petitioners does not suffer from any illegality.
(3.) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not specifically recorded any finding that these properties were purchased in vacant state and they are in the occupation of the petitioners. Contesting respondent has filed counter-affidavit and it has been stated that the mother of the petitioners was in occupation and after her death the properties were in the occupation of the petitioners. THE petitioners have not denied this fact in the rejoinder affidavit. THEy have not categorically stated that these accommodation is in the occupation of any tenant to whom the accommoda tion was duly allotted in accordance with law. After the purchase of the properties it is not clear whether the petitioners were in its occupation or the same was in the tenancy of some tenant and on this aspect, no finding has been recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In view of the above, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to record specific finding whether the houses purchased by the mother of the petitioners are in the possession of the petitioners or in the possession of some tenant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31-8-1998 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the ques tion of vacancy keeping in view the obser vations made above. As the matter is quite old, Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the case within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this Order by either of the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;