1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1074 of 2008 (M/S) thereby, allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - landlords herein.
Rashid Ahmed, the father of the present Appellant, was the original tenant of House No. 61/8, Ground Floor, Green Pasture View, Landhour Bazar, Mussoorie (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises" or "the premises") since 1965. The Respondents had purchased the suit premises from the original landlord Sudesh Kumar Singhal in the year 1998 and, as such, became the tenant-Rashid Ahmed's landlord from 1998. The Respondents - landlord moved an application before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie on 10.6.1999, contending therein, that Rashid Ahmed had sub-let the property to some other persons who were not the family members of the tenant. As such, they prayed for declaration of vacancy under the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act, 1972" or "the Act").
On the application of the landlord, a Rent Control Inspector was appointed to inspect the suit premises. The Rent Control Inspector visited the suit premises and submitted his report on 16.08.1999. In the report, it was stated, that Rashid Ahmed, who was the tenant, was not present in the premises at the time of the inspection and he was informed by the occupants that he had gone to his village Bhatpura in Saharanpur District. The report further stated, that Rashid and Akbar were sons of Hasunuddin and, as such, real brothers. The report stated that, there were several persons residing in the premises and they comprised of four separate families, namely, (1) Rashid Ahmed; (2) Inam s/o Rashid Ahmed along with his six children; (3) Shabbir Ahmed, wife Shafikan and daughter; and (4) Ayyub and his children Naseem and Nashima respectively.
The original tenant-Rashid Ahmed filed objections to the inspection report stating therein, that he and his brother and their families are living in the premises as tenant. He further stated, that tenancy was in his name and there was no other person who was outside his family residing in the said premises. He, therefore, resisted declaring the suit premises as vacant.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the house owner informed the competent authority that, on 19.1.2000 Rashid Ahmed died in his village Bhatpura leaving behind his son Mohd. Inam, the present Appellant, as his legal heir. As such, the name of Rashid Ahmed came to be substituted with that of the present Appellant. The present Appellant filed his application stating therein, that he along with other family members of late Rashid Ahmed was residing in the said premises.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that the persons, who were presently residing in the premises had not produced any evidence to prove, that they were living as tenants since 1965 along with late Rashid Ahmed. As such, he came to the conclusion, that the tenants had allowed persons to reside in the premises, who are not members of the family and, as such, declared the suit premises as vacant vide order dated 4.6.2003.
Being aggrieved thereby, the present Appella........