Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6431 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Lal Respondent :- Rent Control And Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate Vii And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Shrawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 21.1.2017 passed by respondent no.1, Rent Control & Eviction Officer (Annexure-7 to the writ petition);
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 6.10.2017 passed by respondent no.1, Rent Control & Eviction Officer (Annexure-8 to the writ petition);
(iii) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to which the petitioner be entitled under law; and
(iv) award costs to the petitioner".
By the impugned order dated 21.1.2017, the disputed house bearing Municipal No.119/410 (old No.119/790), Darshan Purwa, Kanpur Nagar, has been directed to be released by the Rent control and Eviction Officer/A.D.M. City (VIIth), Kanpur Nagar.
By the impugned order dated 6.10.2017, the aforesaid accommodation has been released in favour of the plaintiff respondent nos.2 and 3 and others.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the disputed house was owned by Smt. Indrawati Jaiswal, who was the mother of the respondent no.3 and grand mother of respondent no. 2. After her death in the year 1997, her sons namely, Sri Parmanand Jaiswal and Sri Kishan Jaiswal became co-owner of the disputed house. The application for vacancy was filed by the respondent no.3 Sri Sandeep Kumar under Section 12 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 with respect to the disputed house which was allowed by the impugned order dated 21.1.2017. The release application was filed by the owner of the house which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 6.10.2017 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ADM City (VIIth),Kanpur Nagar.
Aggrieved with these two orders, the petitioner-tenant has filed the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned vacancy order as well as release order both are arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. He submits that the petitioner was tenant of the disputed accommodation prior to 1972 and as such there was no need of allotment order rather there is deemed allotment in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, since, he is in occupation prior to the year 1976.
I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and perused the record of the writ petition before me.
In the impugned vacancy order a finding of fact has been recorded that one Jhuri was the tenant of the disputed accommodation whose name is also recorded in the Panchshala of the year 1978-87. Thus, it was established on record by documentary evidence, that the petitioner was not the tenant at least prior to 1987. The owner-respondents contended before the authority that the petitioner had occupied the disputed accommodation only in the year 1992 and not prior to that. The affidavits were also filed in support of the aforesaid contention. Since, it was proved by documentary evidence in the form of Panchshala of the year 1978-87, that the petitioner was not tenant prior to the year 1976. Therefore, the protection of Section 14 of the Act, is not available to him.
The findings recorded in the impugned vacancy order, that the petitioner had occupied the disputed accommodation in the year 1992 without any allotment order, is a finding of fact, based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. Therefore, it cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned vacancy order dated 21.1.2017 and the release order dated 6.10.2017 have been passed by the competent authority after well considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences on record. These orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Ak/