The judgment establishes the principle that in statutory proceedings, the Authorities can incidentally go into the question of title to determine the proceedings before them, but the question of title cannot be finally pronounced upon. It also affirms the concept of deemed vacancy based on the landlord's permission to occupy and let out the property.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of vacancy followed by release passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura in exercise of powers under Section 12/16 of UP Act No.13 of 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), which has been affirmed in revision under Section 18 of the Act by the learned Additional District Judge.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these:

An application for allotment of house bearing No. C-55 (new No.212/ 55-C), Radha Nagar, Mathura, was moved before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura by Omveer Saraswat son of B.D. Saraswat. The premises last mentioned, shall hereinafter be called, 'the property in dispute'. Upon registration of the application for allotment on the file of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, an inspection was carried out by the Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report dated 08.08.2014, which says, in substance, that at the time of inspection, the Rent Control Inspector found Rajendra Singh Jayas at the site. According to the Inspector, Rajendra Singh Jayas facilitated his inspection and informed him that he (Jayas) is the owner and landlord of the property in dispute. He said that he runs a security agency in the property in dispute under the name and style of Jayas Security Agency. The agency aforesaid is engaged in the provision of security services. Jayas told the Inspector that he had one room in his possession admeasuring 20x13 feet and another room admeasuring 14x20 feet, besides a lavatory, bathroom and kitchen. On the first floor, he had constructed a single room during the years 1990, 1991 and 1992 through the agency of one Nand Ram, a Civil Contractor and a native of Jaisinghpura, Mathura. The report further on says that Smt. Archana wife of Rajendra Singh Jayas had her name entered in the house tax and water tax records, which she regularly deposits, and Jayas asserted that he was the unquestioned owner of the property in dispute since the past 24 years.

3. It appears that some documents were produced before the Rent Control Inspector by Jayas during the inspection. After the Rent Control Inspector's report had been received by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (for short, 'the RC & EO'), notice in the case registered under Section 12 of the Act was issued to both sides. Rajendra Singh Jayas, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioner', filed his objections to the allotment application on 16.09.2018 before the RC & EO, wherein he said that the applicant for allotment had no need for the property in dispute, inasmuch as he already had available with him a house in the Civil Lines of Mathura. It was also said in the objections that the applicant for allotment had wrongly said that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the property in dispute. Rather, he was the owner thereof where his family lived. Also that, the petitioner had his business in the same premises under the name and style of Jayas Security Agency. The former owner of the property in dispute was one Balraj Khurana son of Raghunath Rai, who had received the property in dispute from his father. Balraj Khurana lived in the said property occupying it as its owner. Balraj Khurana was not financially well off. The petitioner's family had helped Balraj Khurana, extending substantial financial aid to him, besides help needed in social matters and dealings. This gesture by the petitioner had led to a strong bonding between him and Balraj Khurana.

4. In the year 1989, Balraj Khurana migrated to Canada and settled there. Since, the petitioner had helped Balraj Khurana financially when migrating to Canada, he gave the property in dispute to the petitioner through a will. Balraj Khurana is now dead and the petitioner is the owner of the property under reference. The property in dispute is a house built on a plot of 100 square yards. This house had been transferred to Raghunath Rai by the Governm