AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vatindra Singh J.
The petitioner was allotted the premises in dispute on 20th December 1980. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 filed an application on 1592000 for allotment of the same on the ground that it is vacant. In the case a report of Rent Control Inspector was called for and thereafter Respondent No.3 filed an application on 1922001 that his application for allotment be dismissed. In the mean time Respondent No. 2 who is landlord of the premises in dispute also filed his objection that the premises is vacant and it should be released in his favour. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 by his order dated 1382001 held the premises to be vacant, hence the present writ petition.
I have heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Saxena, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 has already withdrawn his application and as such there is no necessity to hear him.
Sri Saxena, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that, premises in dispute is vacant for following two reasons:
(i) The premises was allotted for residential purpose and is being used for commercial purposes.
(ii) The father of the petitioner is a member of the family of the petitioner. He has acquired other houses and as such the premises has become vacant.
1 have considered the aforementioned submissions of Sri Saxena. There is no finding whether the premises in dispute is being used for commercial purposes or not. There is also no finding whether the father of petitioner is member of his family within the meaning of explanation (b) of Section 12 (3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 or not. In view of this order dated 1382001 is set aside. The parties may appear before Respondent No. 1 on 17th September, 2001 and thereafter the Respondent No.1 may decide the case in accordance with law at an early date.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of