The devolution of tenancy rights on heirs and the provision for declaring vacancy under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act were central to the court's decision.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the tenant has questioned the correctness of the order-dated 12. 6. 2000 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (respondent No. 2 ).

( 2 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Kant Gupta, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and have perused the record carefully.

( 4 ) THE following facts are admitted between the parties. Smt. Shiv Kumari, wife of Ramgarib, respondent No. 1, purchased the premises in question bearing House No. 108/65 Gandhi Nagar, kanpur from Kailash Chandra Pathak. On the ground floor of the said premises one Mahabir prasad was tenant. After death of Mahabir Prasad and his wife Smt. Cheta, his two sons Baboo lal (the petitioner) and Basant Lal became tenants. Basant Lal expired leaving behind his widow smt. Jai Laxmi and his two sons Ram Autar and Shyam Kumar. Ram Autar admittedly purchased a house in Usmanpur Colony Juhi Gaushala Kanpur.

( 5 ) THE proceedings commenced on the basis of report dated 5. 9. 1998. Landlady (Smt. Shiv kumari) and the present petitioner filed application/objection. They filed affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire material on record, learned Rent Control and eviction Officer found that all sons, daughters, widow, etc. became joint tenants after death of original tenant and the tenancy rights devolved on all the heirs. He, therefore, placing reliance on a decision of Supreme Court of India in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, allahabad, U. P. and Ors. , reported in 1995 (1) A. R. C. , 220 declared vacancy in respect of two rooms and a Verandah of House No. 108/65 Gandhi Nagar Kanpur under Section 12 (1) (c) and 12 (3) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act ).

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that original tenant was Mahabir Prasad and after his death his widow Smt. Cheta became tenant. She died in the year 1970. After her death, the rent receipt was issued in favour of the petitioner by the then landlord Balram Pathak. The respondent No. 1 wanted to enhance rent and pressurized him to do so. Since he failed to oblige her, the landlady wrongly intimated the vacancy to the authorities on the basis of wrong facts. He further submitted that the petitioner never removed his household effects from the premises in question and respondent No. 2 erred in declaring the vacancy. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Madan Gopal Maheshwari v. District Judge, Mathura and Ors. , reported in 1999 (2) A. W. C. , 1785.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the impugned judgment and has contended with vehemence that after death of Mahabir Prasad, his widow Smt. Cheta became tenant of the premises in question. After her death, her two sons Baboo Lal and basant Lal became tenants. Basant Lal also died leaving behind his widow and his two sons Ram autar and Shyam Kumar. Admittedly, Ram Autar has purchased a house in the name of his wife in Usmanpur Colony, Juhi, Gaushala Kanpur. He has relied on two decisions of the Apex Court in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U. P. and Ors. , 1995 (1) ARC, 220 and Anandi D. Jadhav (DEAD) BY LRS v. Nirmala Ramchandra Kore and Ors. , (2000) 3 s. C. C. , 703 : 2000 SCFBRC 245. According to him, the petitioner and his brother or nephews and brothers wife are not common tenants but under the law they inherited the tenancy from their father and they had occupied the disputed premises as joint tenants. Since one of the tenants has purcha