WPMS No.3170/2001 (Old No.4156 of 1995) Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Anirudha Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. List has been revised. No one appears for the respondent even though vakalatnama of Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocates has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 prospective allottee. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises in dispute. According to the petitioner, it is a residential premises, which was under the tenancy of Ram Prakash who died leaving behind two married daughters who were settled with their husbands in another city. The landlord intimated the authority about this fact, on the basis of which, an enquiry was held and a vacancy was declared under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act for release of the premises in his favour on the ground that he requires the premises to settle his son and his family. It was stated that he had to settle his son and that his son was compelled to come up and down from village Bhagwanpur to Roorkee. On this application, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer directed the Inspector to submit a report. The Inspector submitted the report indicating that on account of the death of the tenant Ram Prakash, the premises has become vacant and that a vacancy has been declared and that the said accommodation can be released in favour of the landlord since he requires the premises for his son and his family. Inspite of this report, the Rent Control & Eviction Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the premises cannot be released for commercial purposes and that even otherwise, the petitioner is a rich person and can settle his son at another place. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer has also found that the premises in question was fit for residential purpose. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, filed a revision, which was also dismissed and, consequently, the writ petition. It is nobody’s case that the accommodation was sought to be released for commercial purpose. A specific case was asserted that the petitioner requires the premises, which is a residential in nature so that his son and his family could shift in the said premises. It appears that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer -2- misdirected itself in believing that the accommodation was required for commercial purpose. In the light of the aforesaid and in the absence of any counter affidavit either by the State or by the prospective allottee, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 30.11.2011 LSR