- (1.) SHITLA Pd. Srivastava, J. This peti tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 19-9-1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar) and fur ther for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over two rooms, one varandah and tin shed of the house No. 8/110, Arya Nagar, Kanpur.
(2.) THE brief fact, as stated in the peti tion, are that the husband of the petitioner late Puran Chand, was tenant of two rooms, one varandah and a tin shed of house No. 8/110, Arya Nagar, Kanpur on behalf of Kunj Behari. It is stated that one Karan Singh was the owner of the property in question and the said house was pur chased by one Ajit Kumar, who use to purchase the rented accommodation on a throw away price and sold them on exor bitant price. It is stated that respondent got the proceeding initiated by the petitioner that the Rent Control Inspector submitted a report dated 8-7-1993. THE allegations are that the respondent No. 3 gave a written statement to the Inspector that the petitioner has illegally occupied one room of Algo Mistri and one room of Smt. Kasturi Devi. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 took a frivolous stand that the petitioner is not the wife of Puran Chand and is an unauthorised occupant. The petitioner filed her affidavit through her son stating that Algo Mistri is none else but her own brother and is living with her because she is widow and her son is minor. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 found that the petitioner is not wife of Sri Puran Chand and she does not live in house in question lawfully is false and held that the wife of late Puran Chand and is legal occupant of the house in question. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 has illegally held that the petitioner is tenant of one room only and another room is in her unauthorised occupation. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 has not recorded any finding as to when the petitioner sur rendered her tenanted one room, when she is recorded as tenant of two rooms in as sessment year 1973-78. Further the con tention of the petitioner is that in the Assessment Year 1977-87 the recording of one room tenancy in the name of Algo is prima facie wrong. Algo was residing ad mittedly with the petitioner because of her being widow and he was non-else than her own brother. A counter affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondent, Kunj Behari. In para 4 of the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the accommodation in question was vacated by the unauthorised occupant Algo Mistri, therefore, the allot ment application was moved by some per sons of the locality. It is stated that the allegations made by the petitioners are in correct. It is further submitted that the Rent Inspector submitted two reports dated 8-9-1993 and other dated 13-9-1994. In the assessment year 1987-92 one room with tin shed was found in occupation of Algo Mistri and one room was found in occupation of Smt. Kasturi. The allega tions of the respondents are that it appears that during the assessment year 1987-92, Algo Mistri vacated the room in his oc cupation and it was illegally and un-authorisedly occupied by the petitioner, therefore, there was a vacancy in respect of that room which was left by Algo Mistri and allotment order was rightly passed by the respondent No. 1.
(3.) A rejoinder affidavit was also filed. Supplementary counter affidavit was filed annexing therewith a copy of the counter affidavit filed by Ashok Kumar son of the petitioner, before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The question involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner was tenant of the portion which she in herited after the death of her husband and kept Algo, her brother, as her helper in other room or Algo is a different person, who was tenant of one room and he left that room and thereafter the petitioner occupied that particular room in un authorised way and there shall be a vacan cy. The dispute is in respect of only one room, which is alleged by the respondent to be in occupation of Algo Mistri in his independent right. The parties filed their affidavits and document with regard to their respective contentions. The Rent Control Inspector also submitted report regarding possession of the disputed por tion.;