Ashok Kumar vs District Judge,Kanpur Nagar and Others

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2481998 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 16(5) of UP. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 1591998 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.

The landlordrespondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation on the ground that one Mohan Lal Verma was a tenant of the disputed premises. He having vacated the same, the accommodation should be treated as vacated. He also applied for release of the accommodation. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report on 1511994 indicating that there was vacancy. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the disputed premises as vacant on 2771995. The accommodation in question was released in favour of respondent No. 3 on 3419% by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.

The petitioner filed an application for review of the said order under Section 16(5) of the Act on the allegation that he was a tenant of the premises in dispute prior to the year 1976. He was not given a notice before the accommodation in question was declared as vacant one. This application was opposed by the landlord. It was contended that he was never a tenant of the disputed premises. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on the material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that he was a tenant of the premises in question prior to the year 1976. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 1591998.

I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner who vehemently urged that there was material evidence on the record which established that the petitioner was living in the accommodation as a tenant prior to the year 1976 and his possession shall be deemed to have been regularised under Section 14 of the Act. This factual aspect has been considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in detail/The petitioner did not file any receipt to show that the respondent No. 3 had accepted him as a tenant. The rent receipts were issued in the name of Mohan Lal Verma, who was uncle of the petitioner. The petitioner may be living with his uncle but mere fact that he was living with his uncle, itself did not create any right in his favour. The documents which he purported to have filed, only showed that he was in possession of the accommodation. The documents, which he has referred in para 12 of the writ petition, relate to Ration Card, birth certificate of the daughter of the petitioner, the address given in the Gas connection and the voters'' list. These documents do not establish that the petitioner was a tenant of the premises in question. The petitioner has further referred to an entry in the assessment record of the Nagar Nigam. This assessment relates to the period of the year 1996 for the quinquennial year 1987 to 1992. The petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and in para 4 of the affidavit it has been stated that he had filed an application for entry of his name in the record of the Nagar Nigam. This entry will conclusively establish that he was a tenant. The Municipal authorities made an entry without any notice to the landlord. Secondly in this very entry Mohan Lal Verma was also shown as a tenant. It has not been shown that the accommodation in question was not earlier in the name of Mohan Lal Verma. I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the petitioner failed to prove that he was a tenant of the disputed accommodation.

In view of the above, I do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner preyed that the petitioner may be granted some time to vacate the disputed accommodation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted three months'' time to vacate the disputed accommodation provided he gives an undertaking in writing on affidavit before respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today that he will vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will handover its peaceful possession to the landlordrespondent No. 3. Petition dismissed.