Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The dispute relates to the property No. 25/16 (old), 25/19 (new), Karachi Khana, Canal Road, Kanpur Nagar, which is in occupation of the petitioner. Whether the said accommodation is “vacant” within the meaning of Section 12 read with Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and open for allotment and release is the question mooted herein.

2. The petitioner claims that the said property is neither vacant, actual or deemed nor it is open for allotment as his grandfather Chandan Lal was the tenant who came in its occupation in the year 1949 on behalf of M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand. M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand was the tenant in chief of the said house and the said house originally belonged to Juggi Lal Kamlapat who had given it to M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand.

3. The respondent No. 3 Jai Kishore Tiwari, filed an application for allotment of the said accommodation on the pleas inter alia that the possession of the petitioner is unauthorised one being sub-tenant of M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand without written consent of the landlord namely Juggi Lal Kamlapat to whom the property originally belonged.

4. The said property was purchased by the respondent No. 2, Purushottam Das Jaiswal by means of the sale-deed dated 3rd of February, 2001 from M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand. M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand purchased the said property from erstwhile owners by means of six sale-deeds all dated 1st of July, 1999. In the sale-deed standing in favour of the respondent No. 2, the succession of the property in question has been mentioned and it is not necessary to deal them. Suffice it to say that the respondent No. 2 purchased the property in dispute from M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand who were the tenants and they had purchased the lessor’s rights from the erstwhile owner as detailed in the sale-deed and had acquired full ownership in respect thereof.

5. The respondent No. 2 who became the owner of the property in dispute also submitted that the property in dispute is vacant in the eyes of law inasmuch as the petitioner is in occupation of the disputed premises as sub tenant without written consent or permission of the landlord or the District Magistrate.

6. A report on the allotment application filed by the respondent No. 3, from the Rent Control Inspector was called for by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the proceedings for allotment/release was set on motion. It was registered as case No. 7/04/29/06.

7. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The petitioner filed documents such as municipal extracts of the years 1927-1932, 1932-1938, 1938-1943, 1943-1949, 1953-1999. Name of Chandan Lal, grandfather of the petitioner, under occupation column is recorded beginning from 1943-1949. Name of M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand as agent of the owner is also recorded in these documents. The petitioner also filed certain rent receipts etc. to show that he is in occupation of the disputed accommodation since the year 1949. The rent receipts issued from M/s. Bisheshwar Nath Mool Chand of the year 1985 etc. were also filed.

8. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the impugned order dated 4th of September, 2006 passed in case No. 7/04/29/06 : Jai Kishore Tiwari v. Kishan Chand Jain and others, held that the ground floor of the house consisting four rooms bearing No. 25/14 (old), 25/16 (new) presently 25/19 Karachi Khana, Canal Road in occupation of the petitioner, is deemed vacant. Challenging the legality and propriety of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel along with Shri M.K. Gupta for the contesting respondent No. 2. The main point mooted in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner, as claimed by him, is entitled for regularization of his occupation as provided under Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 or not. For the sake of convenience Sect