The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 12 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which deals with the declaration of vacancy of a tenement. The judgment emphasizes the importance of conclusive evidence to establish occupancy and vacancy, and the court's reliance on reports and legal provisions to determine the vacancy status of the property.

JUDGMENT :

Before venturing to answer the respective arguments, as it has been extended by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels it apt to precisely deal with the respective cases, as pleaded and argued by the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioners/landlord by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction, as against the impugned order dated 27.11.2008, as it has been rendered in Case No. 1 of 1998 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie, District Dehradun.

3. It is not in controversy, that the predecessor of the present petitioners and the petitioners themselves are the owners and co-owner and accordingly they are recorded landlords of the property in question, commonly called as “Shanty, Hamilton House Estate Landour Cantt. Mussoorie”, (hereinafter to be called as tenement in dispute). The learned counsel for the respondent contends, that the respondents, are the allottees of the premises in question by virtue of an order passed under Section 16 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, by the Court and hence they claim that they are legally in occupation of the premises in question, which was later on sought to be declared as “vacant”, under Section 12 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, in pursuance to the applications for allotment as it was filed by the various successive persons, including respondent No. 3, 4, 5, herein on which various reports were filed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, through the Rent Control Inspector.

4. The first in the sequence would be, the report dated 06.05.1998, as it was then filed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, through Rent Control Inspector, whereby a direction was solicited for the purposes of conducting an inspection of the premises in question, for the purposes of considering the allotment application on which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, had initially submitted a report dated 06.05.1998, in response to the application for allotment which was filed by respondent No. 2, seeking a declaration of vacancy and the consequential allotment.

5. In continuance thereto, the Naib Tehsildar/Rent Control Inspector, is said to have inspected the premises in question, which was sought to be allotted by respondent No. 2, and the same was inspected on 02.07.1998; consequent to it after recording of the statement of co-residents and other evidence, the Rent Control Inspector had submitted a report on 03.07.1998, where the Rent Control & Eviction Officer has observed as under:-

^^mijksDr xokgkuksa ds c;kuksa ds vk/kkj o Hkou dh fLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij mDr bLVsV esa orZeku le; esa dksbZ fuokl ugha dj jgk gSA ftlls mDr bLVsV fjDr izrhr gksrk gSA mDr bLVsV esa vUnj dksbZ lkeku vkfn gS ;k ugha >kadus ls ugha fn[krk gSA**

6. On its simple analogy, the first inspection report dated 03.07.1998, in fact, the analogical inference would be that the principal allottee of the tenement Mr. V.S. Bhagat, is said to have permanently removed his effects from the property in question, which has been described hereinabove, and accordingly, the report was submitted that there was no one residing in the premises in question. Thus, the vacancy stood declared under Section 12 of Act No. 13 of 1972, to be read with Rule 8 of the Rules framed under Section 41 of the Act No. 13 of 1972.

7. Upon receipt of the aforesaid report dated 03.07.1998, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, had issued notices on 22.07.1998 to all as per Rule 8, and in response to it, the sitting tenant i.e. the father of the respondent No. 1, herein, had filed his objection to the report dated 03.07.1998, on the basis that, since the predecessor of respondent No. 1, since being an allottee under Section 16 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the report thus submitted, was without any basis because they contended that they still occupy the premises, apart from the fact that they are regularly paying the rent with effect from the date, when