JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. The petitioner claims that he was living with his aunt-Smt. Ram Kali who was tenant of the disputed accommodation. His aunt died in 2004 and the disputed house No. 118/88 (new No. 119/245) Darshan Purva Kanpur Nagar remained in his possession till his dispossession on 12.1.2006 by the landlord in pursuance of the impugned order dated 21.7.2005.
2. Concise facts are that a release application was moved on 27.4.2004 by the landlord before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Report was called by the authority from the Rent Control Inspector vide order dated 28.4.2004 who submitted his report. After considering the report of the Rent Control Inspector, release application was allowed and vacancy was declared by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 8.9.2004. Consequently the accommodation under the tenancy of Smt. Ram Kali (since deceased) was released in favour of the landlord and he was given possession of the same.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the report of Rent Control Inspector had been submitted behind the back of the petitioner affecting his valuable rights. It is also submitted that in view of Section 3(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the tenancy devolved upon the petitioner being nephew of the tenant deceased.
4. There is no evidence, at all, that the petitioner was normally residing with his aunt. It is only his claim in the writ petition that he was residing with his aunt which is against the report of the Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control Inspector found that part of House No. 118/88 (new No. 119/245) under the tenancy of deceased Smt. Ram Kali was vacant which was under unauthorized occupation of Sri Rajesh son of late Prakash, grandson of the deceased Smt. Ram Kali. The lock on the door had been put by Sri Sanjay son of late Sri Prakash ; that aforesaid information was given to him by the neighbours of deceased Smt. Ram Kali. The relevant extract of the report of the Rent Control Inspector is as under:
tk¡p ls iwoZ mi;qZDr izkFkZuk&Ik= esa mfYyf[kr lEcfU/kr Ik{kksa dks iz'uxr Hkkx dk fujh{k.k djus ds fy;s dk;kZy; ds Ik=&okgd txnh'k izlkn ds ek/;e ls lwpuk vUrxZr fu;e 8¼2½ dh lwpukvksa dks vyx&vyx Hkstk x;kA mDr lwpukvksa esa Ik=&okgd us viuh rkehyh ls lEcfU/kr vk[;k dks vyx&vyx vafdr fd;k x;k gSA tks vkids voyksdukFkZ Ik=koyh esa ewy:Ik esa layXu gS rnksijkUr iz'uxr Hkkx dk Lfkkuh; fujh{k.k fd;k x;kA ea0 ua0 [email protected] iq0 [email protected] n'kZuiqjok dkuiqj uxj ds Hkwfe[k.M esa iz'xur Hkkx fLFkr gSA ftlesa rkyk cUn ik;k x;k gSA tk¡p ds le; vkl&ikl ds iM+kslh mifLFkr gq;s ftuls iz'uxr Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa tkudkjh dh xbZ iM+ksfl;ksa }kjk ekSf[kd :Ik ls voxr djk;k x;k fd iz'uxr Hkkx esa Jherh jkedyh fdjk;snkj ds :Ik esa jgrh Fkh ftudk Lo0 gks x;k gSA muds fdjk;snkjh okys Hkkx esa orZeku le; resa crk;k x;k mudk ukrh jkts'k iq= Lo0 izdk'k dk dCtk gS vkSj iz'uxr Hkkx esa rkyk jh lst; iq= Lo0 izdk'k dk cUn gksrk crk;k x;k gSa ftuls tk¡p ds le; lEidZ Lfkkfir ugha gks ldkA tk¡p ds le; mijksDr edku ds xzgLokeh Hkh mifLFkr feysA
5. Section 3(a) of the Act defines the word 'tenant'. In relation to a building, it means a person by whom its rent is payable and on the death of the tenant of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death and in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs.
6. The word 'family' has been defined in Section 3(g) of the Act as under:
3(g) 'family' in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her-
(i) spouse,
(ii) (ii) male lineal descendants,
(iii) such parents, grant-parents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male-lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her.
7. Reading Section 3(a) of the Act with Section 3(g) harmoniously, the phrase 'such only of his heirs' would have to be given restricted meaning confined to the relations as enumerated in the definition of 'family' in Section 3(g) of the Act. The petitioner being nephew of the tenant, is not covered by definition of 'family' as given in the Act No. XIII of 1972.
8. Moreover, the possession of the disputed accommodation has already been delivered by the petitioner to the landlord, hence, no relief can be granted by this Court in the writ jurisdiction as the reliefsclaimed in the writ petition have become infructuous.
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.