Vinay Kumar Gupta vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer,Kanpur Nagar

Yatindra Singh, J.—This is a writ petition against the order dated 2841999 declaring vacancy in the premises in dispute under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Respondent No. 2 is the landlord and owner of the premises in dispute. Respondent No. 3 is his real daughter. She filed an application on 1781998 for allotment of the premises on the ground that it has become vacant. The Rent Control Inspector submitted his report on 1191998. This was objected by the petitioner. In substance the objection of the petitioner was that:

* The property was taken for residence of joint family and it is tenant but as Sri Purshottam Das Gupta was earning member receipt was issued in his name.

* Sri Purshottam Das Gupta left the premises in 1972and took up tenanted premises elsewhere. Thereafter the petitioner alongwith his mother and other family members of the joint family continued to live in the premises though the rent receipt continued in the name of Purshottam Das Gupta.

* The petitioner is a tenant of the premises living since before 5 of July, 1976 with consent of the landlord and is entitled to protection of the Act.

The Rent Control and Eviction Officer KanpurNagar (Respondent No. 1) after considering the evidence on record held that Sri Purshottam Das Gupta had left the premises in dispute and it has became vacant. Hence the present writ petition.

4.1 have heard Sri W.H. Khan Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M. Dayal and Sri V.K. Agnihotri Counsels for the respondents. I have already summed up the case of the petitioner in paragraph 2 of my judgment. None of the necessary finding has been t ''corded by Respondent No. 1. He has merely held that Sri Purshottam Das Gupta had left the premises and negated the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was minor without recording finding whether joint Hindu family was a tenant or not and when Sri Purshottam Das Gupta left the premises and if petitioner is protected under Section 14 of the Act or not. The case could not be decided without recording finding on these questions. In view of this the order dated 2841999 is quashed and the case is sent back for redecision. The parties may appear before Respondent No. 1 on 2082001 and he may decide the case again in accordance with law after recording finding the following questions:

(i) Whether the joint family was the tenant of the premises in dispute or only Sri Purshottam Das Gupta was the tenant.

(ii) When Sri Purshottam Das Gupta left ^remises in dispute ?

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection of Section 14 of the Act?

With these observation the writ petition is disposed off. W.P. disposed.