Judgment:
Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the State as well as Sri J. P. N. Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
2. The petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 14th July, 2004, passed by Up-Zila Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Hathras, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-19 to the writ petition, by which a vacancy has been declared under the provision of Section 12 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Act') approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Pursuant to the information received from the report of the Rent Control and Eviction Inspector, the Rent Control Officer issued notice to the petitioner, who it is alleged is in occupation of the accommodation in question without any allotment order. The petitioner filed an objection raising firstly that he is in occupation in the accommodation in question since before 1971, i.e., before coming into force of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that he was carrying a business in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Sujata Ayurvedic Pharmacy and the said Sujata Ayurvedic Pharmacy (here-in-after referred to as the 'business') has been shifted sometime in the year 1988. Thereafter, the petitioner is living in the accommodation in question. It is admitted fact that there is no allotment order, either in the year 1971 or in the year 1988 in favour of the petitioner with regard to the accommodation in question. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has considered the objection filed by the petitioner and arrived at the finding that the case set up by the petitioner that he is in occupation as a tenant in the accommodation in question since before 1971 cannot be believed. The alternative case set up by the petitioner that since the business has been shifted sometime in the year 1988 (11.2.1988) and thereafter he is occupying the accommodation in question for the purposes of residential premises in the capacity of a tenant has also not been believed and it was found that the petitioner has occupied the accommodation in question without any allotment order. In this circumstance, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has declared the vacancy under Section 12 of the Act and directed the proceedings for allotment to be initiated.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, could not demonstrate that the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer suffers from any error, much less manifest error of law, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No other point was argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. This writ petition, therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.