Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order declaring vacancy dated 9.9.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer-respondent No. 1.
(2.) Respondent No. 2, on 24.10.1997, moved an application before respondent No. 1 Intimating vacancy purporting to be under Section 15 (1) and (2) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (in short the Act) on the allegations that on the ground floor of house in dispute, one Amar Nath was a tenant of one room. He vacated it in the year. 1989. The petitioner, thereafter, occupied it without any allotment order. Respondent No. 1 directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit a report. He submitted report dated 15.11.1997 that one Amar Nath was a tenant and on his vacation, the petitioner occupied it without any allotment order though he has obtained a rent receipt from the landlord to establish that he is living as a tenant. The petitioner filed objections to the said report, it was contended that he was occupying the disputed room for the last more than 30 years as a tenant. He had raised rent from Rs. 40 to Rs. 100 per month. Amar Nath was never a tenant of any portion of the house in question. Respondent No. 2 claiming herself as co-owner alleged that the house in question was owned by Ram Shankar Awasthl and after his death, it was Inherited by his three sons, namely, Sadhu Awasthi, Atma Ram Awasthi and Babua Awasthi. She is daughter of Sadhu Awasthi and further she purchased the share of Atma Ram Awasthi. According to her. Amar Nath was a tenant and after his vacation, the petitioner occupied it unauthorisedly without any allotment order being passed by respondent No. 1 and as such the accommodation be treated as vacant.
(3.) There was a controversy before respondent No. 1 as to whether Amar Nath was a tenant of the disputed accommodation. On the evidence on record, he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was tenant of one room in the house in question and Amar Nath was tenant of another room in the same house and after he vacated it, it was occupied by the petitioner without any allotment order. He relied upon the extract of the quinquennial assessment year 1978-87 of Nagar Palika, Kanpur Nagar wherein Amar Nath was recorded as a tenant. He, however, found that Atma Ram Awasthi, one of the co-owner, had executed a rent receipt in favour of the petitioner enhancing the rent from Rs. 40 to Rs. 200 per month in the year 1989 and since then, the petitioner is occupying the disputed one room. The petitioner had not obtained any allotment order from respondent No. 1 and as such, his occupation in the disputed accommodation was unauthorised and it should be deemed as a vacant.;