w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Harish Dharmwani v/s Sukanya Bhatt

    Writ-A No. 1365 of 2004

    Decided On, 20 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


    For the Petitioner: Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For the Respondent: A.N. Sinha, J.P. Singh, K.K. Tripathi, Advocates, Prateek Sinha, S.C.

Judgment Text

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N.Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The writ petition is directed against order dated 26.12.2003 passed by Rent Control an

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d Eviction Officer/Vth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as "RCEO") declaring vacancy in the shop situated in house No.8/171, Arya Nagar, Kanpur and making it available for allotment; and proceeding therefor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that shop in question was initially let out to Sri Asumal Dharmwani, father of petitioner, who carried on proprietorship business in the name and style of "M/s Prakash General Store" and died on 29.6.1998, whereafter petitioner continued to run the said business. The shop in question was never allowed to be occupied by any other person and evidence adduced by petitioner in this regard have been ignored by RCEO and therefore, impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. However, I find no force in the submission. RCEO has found that inspection was made by Rent Control Inspector and one Murli was found while doing business in the shop in question. Thereafter, Court sent two notices, one was received and signed by Murli on 11.12.1998 and another was singed by Jai Prakash on 16.01.1999 and according to landlord, these are the two persons, who are carrying on business in the shop in question and they are unauthorised occupant of the shop in question and therefore, shop is deemed vacant under Section 13 read with Section 12(1)(b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972").

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any perversity in the findings record by RCEO in the impugned order warranting interference. Findings of fact have been recorded which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record justifying interference. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad v. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.

6. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere.

7. Dismissed.

8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.