A person who occupies a building without an order of allotment or release is deemed to be an unauthorized occupant, and the premises shall be treated as vacant, as per Sections 11 and 13 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15. 12. 1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer 1. Allahabad (for short r. C. E. O. ) declaring the vacancy of the second floor portion of premises No, 31/31 Sardar Patel marg, Allahabad under Section 12 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) PUT briefly, the facts of the case are that Shambhoo Chopra, respondent No. 5, who is owner/landlord of premises No. 31/31, Sardar Patel Marg, Allahabad intimated the District magistrate about the vacancy of the accommodation on the second floor of the aforesaid house stating that Rizwan Ullah, who was in occupation of the same as a tenant has delivered vacant possession to the landlords and has cleared rent up to May, 1998. On this intimation, the r. C. E. O. deputed the Rent Control Inspector (for short r. C. I. ) to verify the facts. A report after spot inspection was submitted by the RCI on 13. 7. 1998. He found that Usman Gani Khan, present petitioner and his family members are residing in the disputed accommodation comprising two large sized rooms, one small room, two shall balconies, a terrace and usual amenities of kitchen and toilet, on the second floor of the house. It was also reported that Usman gani Khan was in occupation of accommodation for the last about two years though there was no order of allotment in his favour. After the receipt of the report of the RCI. notices were issued to the occupant Usman Gani Khan as well as the landlords. The petitioner appeared before the r. C. E. O. and took the plea in his objection that he is in occupation of the disputed accommodation right from 1976 with the consent of the landlord to whom initially a sum of Rs. 100 per month was paid as rent but in course of lime, it came to be graduated to Rs. 500 per month, though no receipts have been issued. The landlord, it was alleged, refused to receive the rent from the month of June 1998 and consequently, the petitioner was compelled to deposit the rent in Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) West. Allahabad, under Section 30 of the Act. The landlord denied the above facts. Rizwan Ullah who was earlier tenant of the disputed accommodation, filed an affidavit to depose that the disputed accommodation was never occupied by Usman Ganl Khan and that after paying the rent upto March 1998, he (Rlzan Ullah)put the landlord-Shambhoo Chopra in peaceful possession of the accommodation in question. After taking Into consideration the material available on record and the circumstances attending the case, the learned R. C. E. O. by the impugned order dated 15. 12. 1998 came to the conclusion that the petitloner-Usman Gani Khan was an unauthorized occupant of the disputed accommodation and accordingly a deemed vacancy under Section 12 of the Act was declared. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds of challenge mentioned in the writ petition are that the landlord has another house to live in and, therefore, he does not need the disputed accommodation for his occupation, that the petitioner is depositing rent continuously and that the dispute arose when the petitioner deposited rent in court. It is prayed that the impugned order dated 15. 12. 1998, a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, be quashed and the respondents be commanded not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the disputed accommodation.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 5-Shambhu Chopra, who is one of the co-landlords has filed a counter-affidavit repelling all the submissions made by the petitioner. It has been emphatically denied that the petitioner is a tenant in any portion of the premises No. 31/31 Sardar Patel Marg, allahabad, known as Chopra Building. It is a