JUDGMENT:

J.J. Munir, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 36 of 2014, dismissing the Revision and affirming the order of vacancy dated 1.7.2014 and release dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'the RC & EO') in proceedings under Sections 12/16 of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, 'the Act').

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, briefly said, are that a typed written statement was presented by Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of the late Vidya Sagar, respondent No. 1 to this petition, before the RC & EO, stating that she is the co-owner of House No. 74/137(1), Dhankutti, Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'the demised premises'). The demised premises, on the ground floor, has a single room with an abutting platform (Chabutra), demised to one Ganga Ram. Since Ganga Ramm has built his own house, bearing House No. 2/292, Sector H, Jankipuram, Lucknow, he has shifted to Lucknow way back in the year 1998 alongwith his family. The demised premises are in possession of Ganga Ram's brother, Jamuna Ram. In view of the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act, the demised premises would be deemed vacant. The said written statement submitted to the RC & EO was supported by the statements of one Ramesh Chandra Gupta and another Gopal Chandra Mishra. The RC & EO called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector.

3. The Rent Control Inspector submitted a report to the effect that the demised premises was in the tenancy of the late Mahaveer Prasad. Ganga Ram and Jamuna Ram are his sons. Both of them are, therefore, tenants. The demised premises are situate on a plot of land, which has a room and an adjoining Chabutra. It was also reported by the Rent Control Inspector that upon both the wives of Vidya Sagar and their sons saying that Rakesh Kumar Gupta was the owner, he tendered rent to Rakesh Kumar Gupta. Since Rakesh Kumar Gupta refused to accept the tendered rent, Jamuna Ram was depositing the same in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kanpur Nagar under Section 30(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Inspector further reported that Jamuna Ram's stand was affirmed by a certain Kamla Devi and Tara Devi. The RC & EO did not accept Jamuna Ram's case that the demised premises were let out to his father and upon his demise, both his sons Ganga Ram and himself, had inherited the tenancy.

4. It was remarked by the RC & EO that Jamuna Ram had not produced any evidence to show that the then landlord, Rameshwar Prasad Verma had issued any rent receipt in favour of his father, Mahaveer Prasad. No allotment order issued by the competent Authority in favour of Mahaveer Prasad was produced either. In the opinion of the RC & EO, the absence of evidence in support of Jamuna Ram's pleaded case of an inherited tenancy from his father, the premises were liable to be declared vacant. Accordingly, vide order dated 1.7.2014, vacancy was declared. This order was followed by an order of release passed by the RC & EO on 30.9.2014.

5. Both these orders were challenged by Jamuna Ram, the present petitioner and his brother Ganga Ram together, by means of Rent Revision No. 36 of 2014, instituted before the Court of the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The said revision was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment and order dated 25.4.2017.

6. Dissatisfied with the concurrent orders made by the RC & EO and the learned Additional District Judge in revision, Jamuna Ram alone preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before this Court being Matter under Article 227 No. 3725 of 2017. The said petition was allowed by an order dated 11.9.2019 with a remand to the Court of Revision on the short ground that there were