- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This Writ Peti tion is directed against the order dated 15-12-1998 declaring the accommodation as vacant and the order of release under Section 16 (l) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) in favour of the landlady-respondent by the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer on 8-1-1999.
(2.) THE landlady-respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. THE Rent Control Inspector reported that the petitioner is unauthorised occupant. It was declared as vacant on 20-7-1996. THE petitioner filed objections stating that his father Mansa Ram was a tenant of the disputed accommodation and after his death, he inherited the tenancy right. THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the petitioner failed to prove that his father was a tenant and further according to the petitioner himself, the accommoda tion was let out to his father in the year 1992 and the accommodation cannot be occupied as a tenant unless a valid allot ment order is passed. His objection was dismissed on 15-12-1998. THE petitioner preferred a revision against the said order before the District Judge, Meerut. Learned Counsel for the respondents has informed that the revision has been dis missed on 25-1-1999. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not afforded any oppor tunity of being heard before the accommodation in question was declared as vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 20-7- 1996. THE petitioner, after the said order was passed, had filed objec tions before the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer. His objection was considered and again the order declaring vacancy in regard to the disputed accommodation was passed on 15-12-1998. THE petitioner having himself filed objections and that having been considered on merit, the petitioner cannot make any grievance that he was not afforded an opportunity before the order was passed by the" Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring the accom modation in question as vacant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the finding recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the disputed accommodation was vacant, is erroneous. The petitioner himself in para 3 of the writ petition stated that the dis puted accommodation was let out to his father at monthly rent of Rs. 650 in the year 1992. The occupation by his father shall be deemed as an unauthorised in contraven tion of the provisions of Section 11 read with Section 13 of the Act. Rent Control and Eviction Officer was justified in treat ing such occupation as unauthorised. Secondly there was no material evidence to show that there was a contract of tenan cy between the landlady and the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed before me a copy of the order dated 25-7-1998 wherein the Court has held that the petitioner was unauthorised occupant and decreed the suit for damages against him. The findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the ac commodation in question was vacant, do not suffer from any manifest illegality. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the landlady does not re quire the disputed accommodation. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on consideration of the evidence produced before him, recorded a finding that the need of the landlady in regard to the dis puted accommodation is bona fide. The petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and has no right to raise any objection against the order of release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
(3.) IN view of the above, the writ peti tion is dismissed. In the end, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the disputed accommodation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided he deposits the entire decretal amount as passed in Suit No. 631 of 1997 against him within one month form today and gives a written undertaking on af fidavit before the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer within a period of three weeks from today that he would vacate the dis puted accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to the landlady respondent No. 3. Petition dismissed. .;