JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner No. 1, Om Wati widow of Late Anoop Kumar and her children approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11th April, 2005, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has declared the vacancy in the accommodation in question under the provisions of the U.P Act No. XIII of 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Aggrieved by the order dated llth April, 2005, the petitioners preferred a revision before the revisional court/District Judge. The revisional court vide order dated 7th May, 2005 has held that since the order under challenge by means of revision is neither an order under Section 16, nor under Section 19 of 'the Act', therefore revision is dismissed summarily as not maintainable.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners' case was that her husband, namely. Anoop Kumar inherited the tenancy from his father, namely, Triloki Nath, who was the original tenant in the building in dispute since before 1987 and after the death of Triloki Nath, the husband of the petitioner Anoop Kumar inherited the tenancy. That after the death of Anoop Kumar, petitioners Smt. Om Wati and her children inherited the tenancy. An application has been filed by one Sushil Chand Goswami in November, 1990 to the effect that the accommodation in dispute is lying vacant, which was under occupation of Triloki Nath since before 1987, but sometime in the year 1993-94 Triloki Nath died and thereafter in fact the shop is lying vacant. On the aforesaid application moved by Sushil Chand Goswami, the Rent Control Inspector submitted his report. Thereafter on the basis of the material on record and the report of the Rent Control Inspector, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has directed the issue of the notice to all concerned. The petitioners filed objection stating therein that Triloki Nath was the tenant since before 1987 and after his death Anoop Kumar, the husband of the petitioner inherited the tenancy being the son of Triloki Nath and since Anoop Kumar has also died, therefore the petitioners have become the tenant. The petitioners further submitted that the shop in question is in occupation of the petitioners and since there was litigation as a consequence thereof, the landlord refused to accept the rent, therefore the petitioners are depositing the rent under Section 30 of the Act. It is further contended that an injunction suit is also pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Etawah, in which injunction has been granted to the effect that the petitioners shall not be evicted except in accordance with law. The petitioners further contended that the applicant Sushil Chand Goswami in connivance of the Rent Control Inspector managed the report and since the petitioner No. 1 is a widow having other petitioners who are minors, they want her to throw on the road and therefore this application is mala fide and is liable to be dismissed. It is also stated that the shop in dispute is an old construction, which is 80-90 years old, wherein Late Triloki Nath was the tenant since before 1987. The respondent filed an objection to the aforesaid contention of the petitioners-tenant stating therein that Triloki Nath, father of Anoop Kumar and the father-in-law of the petitioner Om Wati have never been in possession of the shop in dispute either since 1987, or before that as tenant ; and in fact Triloki Nath was fairly old man, he approached the landlord with the request that he may be allowed to occupy the shop in dispute for carrying on his livelihood, therefore the aforesaid shop was allowed to be occupied by Triloki Nath, but the shop has never been allotted in favour of Triloki Nath or Anoop Kumar and that no rent receipts have been issued to them. In this circumstance, the petitioner Om Wati cannot Claim to be a tenant and the shop in dispute is in fact is lying vacant and the petitioners are unnecessarily put the lock over the shop in dispute. The building in which the shop in dispute is situated is in dilapidated condition and the Municipal Board has also issued the notice for demolition of the upper portion of the building. Both the parties have adduced their evidence before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the material evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that the stand taken by the petitioners that they were tenant with the consent of the landlord, cannot be accepted, nor there is any such material on record to this effect. There is also no evidence that Anoop Kumar or his father Triloki Nath ever been there in the accommodation in dispute as tenant, but in fact the father of Anoop Kumar had occupied the shop in dispute without any allotment order after 1976 or since 1987. In this circumstance, the occupation of the petitioners are that of unauthorised occupants and the shop in dispute is in fact vacant in the eyes of law as contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the order impugned in the present writ petition has directed to proceed for notification of the vacancy to be initiated. As already stated above that the petitioners approached the revisional court against the order dated llth April, 2005, which was dismissed by the revisional court as not maintainable.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord raised an objection that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case in Ganpat Roy and Ors. v. Additional District Magistrate and Ors., , no revision lies against the order declaring the vacancy, but the order of declaring vacancy can be challenged by means of writ petition, thus this writ petition by the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenant submitted that since the revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed as not maintainable, this writ petition may be confined to the order declaring the vacancy in view of the law laid down in Ganpat Rai's case (supra). It is further submitted by the petitioners that the statement in the impugned order that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the petitioners predecessors were occupying the shop in dispute the capacity of the tenant, is not correct. There is material, namely, the assessment register of the municipal authority wherein the petitioners' father-in-law Triloki Nath has been shown as tenant in the column made for it, therefore the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer deserves to be set aside. It is further contended by petitioners that the application filed by Sushil Chand Goswami is mala fide and is in connivance with the landlord.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord demonstrated from the order impugned in the present writ petition that this contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenant that there is material on record that the assessment register and certified copy whereof filed by the petitioners-tenant to the effect that the petitioner's father-in-law was shown as tenant, is in fact a forged document that is why the Rent Control and Eviction Officer observed that the assessment register of the municipal board has been summoned, wherein in the original register there is no such entry as has been shown in the certified copy filed on behalf of the petitioners-tenant. In this circumstance, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has held that the petitioners occupation is that of an unauthorised occupant and in view of the law laid down in the case in Nutan Kumar and Ors. v. IInd Additional District Judge and Ors., 2003 (1) AWC 213 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 71 : 2002 (2) ARC 645. and the accommodation in dispute is in fact vacant in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act.
5. I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners-tenant, but I found that the arguments cannot be substantiated by the material on record. The submission on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenant that the finding arrived at by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer suffers from the manifest error of law, has not been demonstrated to be either perverse or suffers from any error of law. Therefore, the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that certified copy and the assessment register filed by the petitioners-tenant is in fact a forged one and is clear from the comparison from the register summoned from the municipal board do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No other point has been argued.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.