Laxmi Devi vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer,Kanpur Nagar

R.H. Zaidi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2352000 whereby the building in question was declared vacant and the order dated 372000 whereby review application filed by the petitioner against the order of declaration of the vacancy was dismissed as not maintainable.

The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief are that the respondent No. 3 applied for allotment of the building in question which consisted of one room and ,a verandah pleading that the same was legally deemed to be vacant as Chaman Lal who was the tenant of the said building acquired a residential building �in the same city. On the application made by the respondent No. 3 the building in question was got inspected .through Rent Control Inspector who submitted his report after following the procedure prescribed for the same and after recording the statement of the landlady to the effect that Chaman Lal who was the tenant of. the building in question acquired and shifted to house No. 10/152, Khalasi Line (quarter No. 31) long back and sublet the building in question to one Roshan Lal who was not the member of his family. It was also stated that Roshan Lal occupied the building in question without getting it allotted in his name and without permission of the landlady illegally. It was reported that legally the building in question was vacant. On the basis of the said report the notices were issued to the concerned parties on 2551999. On the receipt of the notices the landlady filed her affidavit which fully supported the report of the Rent Control Inspector and the case of respondent No. ,3. The Ration Card No. 677274 and electoral roll for the year 1995 para 35 were also produced before the Rent Control and EvictionOfficer. An objection was filed by Chaman Lal claiming that he was in occupation of the building in question, for the last 30 years and was living in the same with his family. The said building was never vacated nor he intended to vacate the same. It was contended that Rent Control Inspector submitted the report without following the procedure prescribed under the law. In support of his case .Chaman Lal also produced documentary evidence. Rent Control and Eviction Officer after hearing the parties, and perusing the material on record came to the conclusion that the originally Chaman Lal was the tenant of the building in question who has acquired a residential building in Khalasi Line and sublet the building in question to Roshan Lal who was not a member of his family, therefore, the house in question was deemed vacant under clauses (b) and (c) of sub section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. Having recorded the said findings the building in question was declared vacant by the judgment and order dated 2352000 by the respondent No. 1. Validity of the aforesaid order was not challenged by Chaman Lal, the respondent No. 4, or by his 6rother Roshan Lal. However the petitioner appears to have filed the objections on 562000 and 3:72000 which were rejected by the respondent No. 1 by order dated 372000 holding that the building in question was already declared vacant, hence the present petition.

From the material on record it is evident that the petitioner had knowledge of proceeding which were initiated on the application of the respondent No. 3 and were pending before the respondent No. 1 and it is claimed that the objection was filed on 852000 but she did not pursue her case before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer nor produced any evidence. It was after the building in question declared vacant she woke up and started claiming that actually she was the tenant of the building in question. Even for argument sake it is admitted that the petitioner was the tenant of the building in question. Chaman Lal happened to be her son and a member of her family who has admittedly acquired residential building in the same city, therefore, the building in question shall be deemed to be vacant under subsection (3) of Section 12 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that Chaman Lal was not dependent upon the petitioner, he was living independently, therefore, on acquiring a residential building by Chaman Lal the building in question cannot be deemed to be vacant. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate from the material on record that such a plea was taken by the petitioner before the authorities below, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot carveout a new case.

In any view of the matter, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.