The dispute is in respect of a shop bearing Municipal No.
By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed orders dated 13 8 1981 and 18 11 1981 passed by the Rent Controller declaring a vacancy under Section 12 2 read with Section 12 4 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
In the year 1979, the appellant filed suit for eviction of the respondent tenants hereinafter referred to as the respondents on the ground that there was a sub letting of the premises by induction of Swarup Kailash, the son in law of Ganpat Roy as a partner for carrying on the business in the shop in dispute.
This Court allowed their appeal on 29 3 1985 and directed the High Court to re hear the writ petition filed by the respondents on merits.
A petition was filed by the respondents on 11 9 1981 making prayer to recall the aforesaid order dated 13 8 1981 and to give them permission to file objections and to companytest the proceedings.
The said Sheobux Roy started a business in the name and style of M s B.N. Rama Co. Sheobux Roy died on 3 2 1941 leaving behind five sons namely Khush Bakht Roy, Sant Bux Roy, Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy.
The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer by his order dated 18 11 1981 negatived the companytention of the respondents that there was numberdeemed vacancy in respect of the premises in question.
The writ petition, aforesaid, was ultimately allowed by the impugned order dated 21 9 1992 by the High Court on the finding that after the death of Sheobux Roy on 3 2 1941, his sons became tenants in companymon and number joint tenants.
In March 1981, one Ramesh Nath Kapur and Radhey Shyam filed an application for allotment of the said premises to them, on the ground that there was a deemed vacancy of the premises.
It was further said by this Court that pending disposal of the writ petition before the High Court, there shall be a stay of further proceedings in respect of the allotment of the premises in question and the respondents shall number be dispossessed from the same.
The other two sons ceased to have any interest or companycern with the shop in question.
In the year 1937, the shop was let out to late Sheobux Roy by the grandfather of the appellant.
In the year 1943, there was a family partition amongst the sons of Sheobux Roy and the shop in dispute fell to the share of Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P SINGH, J. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 21 9 1992 passed by the Allahabad High Court on a writ petition filed on behalf of Respondents 5 to 7.
The respondents filed a special leave petition before this Court against the aforesaid order of the High Court.
The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer by his order dated 13 8 1981 held that there was a deemed vacancy in respect of the said premises and he directed that the said vacancy be numberified.
That petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer by his order dated 13 9 1981.
24 34 situated at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Civil Lines Market, Allahabad.
Thereafter a writ application was filed on behalf of the respondents which was dismissed by the High Court saying that it was number maintainable.
Sampat Roy, Ganpat Roy and Sheopat Roy were carrying on their business in the name and style of M s N. Rama Co. In the year 1976, Ganpat Roy and his son Ramesh Roy companystituted a new partnership firm with one Swarup Kailash, son in law of Ganpat Roy under the name and style of M s B.N. Rama Co. Textiles for carrying on the business in textile, in the premises in question.
