2007 Supreme(All) 138
[2007(2) ADJ 19 (NOC))
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAKESH TIWARI, J.
SHAMBHU @ SHAMBHU DAYAL ......... Petitioner
Versus
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER/ADDITIONAL CITY MAGISTRATE 7TH, KANPUR NAGAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52883 of 2003, decided on 16th January, 2007)
Advocates:
Counsel :
H.N. Singh. B. Narayan Singh for the Petitioner; Pankaj Bhatia. M.F. Malik. S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1872—Section 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 21(1)—Allotment—Deemed vacancy—Declaration of—A prospective allottee (Respondent No.2) moved an application for allotment under Section 12—Building was Inspected by Inspector who submitted his report—Claim of prospective allottee is that petitioner Is residing since 1987 without allotment order—Whereas case of petitioner/tenant is that he Is residing In disputed accommodation since 198B—Prior to coming Into force of Act No. XIII of 1972—While declaring vacancy, It has been held by trial Court that prima facie rent receipts filed by tenant appear to be forged and denied by erstwhile landlord—Panchshala entries prior to 1987 which do not show that petitioner was ever recorded as tenant—But it shows that petitioner was recorded as tenant from 1987 to 1992—Panchshala for 1978-83 show that ‘B’ was tenant of accommodation in dispute, not petitioner—Petitioner entered Into possession of accommodation In 1987-92 without there being an order of allotment—Hence, petitioner was tenant before enforcement of Act No. XIII of 1972—Petition is frivolous—Cost is to be deterrent and exemplary—once person Is declared “unauthorised occupant”— There is vacancy under Section 11 of Act.
Back
