Shashi Kant Gupta, J.:-

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 5, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 44/2008 and the orders dated 4.4. 2008 and 15.5. 2008 passed by the Rent Control & Eviction Officer(in short 'R.C.E.O.'), Kanpur Nagar under sections 12/16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are as follows:-

3. The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of House No. 106/375, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed premises') since 1967. The opposite party no. 3 had purchased the premises in dispute in the year 2005. An allotment application was filed in respect of the said premises. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer, on the basis of the said application, directed the Rent Control Inspector to submit its report, who, after receiving objections from the concerned parties, submitted its report. R.C.E.O. by its order dated 04.04.2008 declared the vacancy under section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') of the disputed premises and allowed the release application of the landlord opposite party no. 3.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the orders dated 4.4. 2008 and 15.5. 2008 passed by the R.C. E.O. under sections 12/16(1)(b) of the said Act, a revision was filed under section 18 of the Act and the same was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 13.1.2009. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the premises in dispute was never vacated by him and the said premises is still occupied by him along with his son namely Virendra Singh. However, it has not been denied by the petitioner that his other son Rajendra Singh has got constructed his own house and has shifted to the newly constructed premises. It has been further submitted that the report of the Rent Control Inspector was procured by the landlord. He further submits that the R. C. E. O. merely on the basis of voter list, ration card and identity card has wrongly concluded that the petitioner permanently has shifted to his native village leaving the disputed premises in the exclusive possession of his son Virendra Singh. He further submits that the provisions of Rule 8 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules) have not also been complied with.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the last has submitted that the proceedings with regard to the vacancy of the disputed premises were initiated after more than 15 years and as such the said proceedings are time barred and in support of this contention he has relied upon the decision in Smt. Brij Bala Jain Vs. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and others, 1996 All. CJ 1233.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent (landlord) submitted that there was no violation of Rule 8(2) of the Act while submitting the report by the Rent Control Inspector as notice was duly served upon the petitioner. However, he further submitted that the provisions of Rule 8(2) are of no importance in the present case because the petitioner himself had participated in the proceedings of vacancy. He further submits that the petitioner has surrendered his tenancy in favour of his son Virendra Singh without the consent of the then landlord and had shifted to his native village. He further submits that, admittedly, the opposite party no. 2, Virendra Singh was paying rent of the disputed premises to the landlord in his own right, as such, there was no longer any relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner. He further submitted that, admittedly, Rajendra Singh, the other son of the petitioner has shifted to his newly constructed house, as such the provisions of sections 12(1) and 12(3) of the Act are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that there is no whisper that Rajendra Singh, who w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document