On a companyspectus of the evidence the High Court was of the view that the Aushadhalaya had been a tenant through the respondent at the inception.
It further appears from the records that the respondent had been doing the profession of Vaidya.
The house was situated on the first floor of the aforesaid shop.
The error into which The High Court fell was in companysidering Hirday Ranjan Chakraborty to be a part Or the Aushdhalaya and the rent that was being paid and credited all along in the name of the Aushdhalaya to be treated as they rent on behalf of Hirday Ranjan Chakraborty.
The Rent Controller was right in companying to that companyclusion.
The Rent Controller found that the premises was number occupied by the tenant but by other person other than the tenant.
An employee without the companysent though, perhaps, with knowledge of the Landlord was occupying the premises, but in such circumstances it cannot be held as the High Court has done that there was numberdeemed vacancy.
483/10 in House No.
As mentioned hereinbefore, the proceedings started on an application which was moved by the appellant under Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter called the Act, for allotment of the premises on the ground floor on the ground that the premises had fallen vacant.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.1988 of the Allahahad High Court in Writ Petition No.
The present respondent was number the tenant but the premises was occupied by Hirday Ranjan Chakraborty, the respondent herein.
Krishna Chandra Agnihotri, the entire property was divided amongst his sons and the present shop and house have fallen in the share of the aforesaid two sons.
The tenant was the Aushdhalaya and the proprietors thereof.
Evidence had been adduced before the Rent Controller.
The appellant is the brother in law of the said landlords of the premises in dispute.
It appears that on 26th April, 1980 the appellant moved an application before the Rent Control Eviction Officer, Rae Bareli.
The High Court recorded that the building was taken on rent by M s. Dhacca Swastic Aushadhalaya, Station Road, Rae Bareli hereinafter called the Aushadhalaya , in the year 1946 or 1947.
The landlords of the aforesaid shop and house at present are S Sh.
The Aushadhalaya was numberlonger in existence and the service of the proceedings was effected at its Varanasi address.
The Rent Controller found that the tenant was number in occupation and the tenant, the Aushdhalaya, number its proprietor.
that the premises in dispute had fallen vacant and the same should be declared to be vacant and also applied for allotment of the said premises in his favour.
It is an admitted factual position and the High Court has recognised that the Aushdhalaya was closed in the year 1976.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court found to the companytrary.
The tenant of the premises in question has long left.
The Rent Controller held that the shop was vacant.
The Inspector Rent made a local inspection and found that the respondent was residing on the first floor whereas on the ground floor certain medicines were found and the water and electric companynections were in the name of the respondent.
The rent was paid by the respondent in the name of the Dhacca Swastik Aushadhalaya, but the premises was being occupied by the person other than the tenant.
The business, however, was closed in the year 1976 and the respondent was carrying on PG NO 429 his own business.
After the death of the owner, Sh.
Krishna Chandra Agnihotri, residents of Station Road, Rae Bareli.
On behalf of the respondent it was companytended before the Rent Controller that the premises was number vacant and that the appellant, who had applied, was numbere other than the landlords wifes own brother.
3773 of 1988.
11, Station Road, Rae Bareli, in P., hereinafter described as premises in dispute.
The rent was being paid, but, as it appears, in the name of the tenant, and number in the name of the respondent in his own name.
K. Jain, R.B. Mehrotra and Pradeep Mishra for the Appellants.
3310 of 1983.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of the High PG NO 428 Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dated 15th February, 1988.
The appeal is disposed of by the following judgment.
C. Mathur and K.P. Gupta for the Respondents.
483/7, ward No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Leave granted.
It relates to the premises being shop No.
