THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 5477 of 2001. 1. Shri Radhey Shyam Goswami S/O Shri Jyoti Prasad. 2. Smt. Bimal Goswami W/O Shri R.S. Goswami, Both R/O The Mall Mussoorie through their attorney Shri Som Prakash. … Petitioners. Vs. 1. The District Judge, Dehradun. 2. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. 3. Smt. Chandra Rana W/O Late Dr. D.S.Rana, R/O 159-B, Kishanpur, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. 4. Lt. Col. Dependra Rana, S/O Late Dr. D.S.Rana, R/O 159-B, Kishanpur, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. 5. Shi Hamender Rana, S/O Late Dr. D.S.Rana, R/O 159-B, Kishanpur, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate, with Mr. T.C.Pandey, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Date March 09, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the private respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 3-8-2001 passed by the respondent no. 1 and the order dated 14-5- 1998 passed by the respondent no.2- Rent Control and Eviction Officer Mussoorie (for short the R.C.&E.O.) (Annexures 5 and 7 to the petition). By order dated 14-5-1998, the R.C.&E.O. held that the disputed accommodation, i.e. the two outhouses of Manmohan Cottage Estate situated at the Mall Mussoorie in the tenancy of Dr. D.S.Rana was not liable to be declared as vacant. The revision preferred against the said order of R.C.&E.O. before the District Judge Dehradun too 2 was dismissed as not maintainable since there was no vacancy vide impugned order dated 3-8-2001. This fact is not disputed that Dr. D.S.Rana was a tenant in the premises in dispute and the petitioners-landlords have purchased the tenanted accommodation and the outhouses from the previous owner. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that an information of the purchase of the disputed premises was sent by the petitioners to the tenant Dr. D.S.Rana. After purchase, the petitioners moved an application for release under Section 21(1(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act 1972 (for short the Act), which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act for release of various outhouses including the disputed two outhouses under the tenancy of Dr. D.S.Rana. The landlords-petitioners also moved a common application for release of all the outhouses including those in the tenancy of Dr. D.S.Rana, in their favour. The R.C.& E.O. called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector and after obtaining the report, the parties filed their affidavits in support of their respective contentions. Ultimately, all the outhouses including the outhouses in question under the tenancy of D.S.Rana were declared vacant and they were ordered to be released in favour of the landlords. The tenants including D.S.Rana preferred revisions against the order of release. The revision preferred by the said tenant was allowed and the order declaring the vacancy was set aside. The revisional court remanded the case to the R.C.&E.O. for deciding the same afresh. After the remand, the parties led evidence before the R.C.&E.O. by way of filing affidavits. An application was moved on behalf of the petitioners for inspection under Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Act. The R.C.& E.O. found one Sri Udai Singh in possession of one of the outhouses under the tenancy of Dr. D.S.Rana. 3 The R.C.&E.O. by his order-dated 26.6.1991 declared a vacancy and allowed the release application of the petitioners by his order dated 5- 7-1991. Aggrieved, Dr. D.S.Rana filed Revision No. 66 of 1992 before the District Judge Dehradun, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.8.1992. The tenant D.S.Rana preferred writ petition bearing No. 29883 of 1991 before the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court vide order dated 7-1-1993 ultimately allowed the petition on the ground that full compliance of the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules framed under the Act was not made by the R.C.&E.O. and both the impugned orders were quashed. The R.C.&E.O. was directed to decide the question as to the existence of vacancy afresh in accordance with law. Dr. D.S.Rana moved an application for inspection before the R.C.&E.O. on 14-7-1994, who in turn directed the Rent Control Inspector to make inspection and to submit his report. The report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector 1.5.1995. It was found that in one of the disputed outhouses, broken furniture of D.S.Rana was found dumped and in the other outhouse, wife and children of one Umed Singh were found residing, who were allegedly the servants of D.S.Rana, the tenant. The R.C.&E.O. after considering the material placed before him held that the outhouses in possession of D.S.Rana were not vacant vide order dated 14-5-1998. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlords preferred revision No. 76 of 1998 Radhey Shyam Goswami and another Vs. R.C.&E.O. and another before the District Judge Dehradun. The revisional court having discussed the entire controversy in detail ultimately dismissed the revision and upheld the findings of the R.C.&E.O. vide order dated 3-8-2001. Both these orders are impugned in the present writ petition. Before this Court, the learned Senior Advocate Sri V.K.Kohli, appearing for the petitioners has contended that Dr. 4 D.S.Rana had expired on 20-2-1999 and his legal heirs have vacated the disputed premises and handed over the possession of residential accommodation of the main house to the landlords and the same has already been released in favour of the landlords. The averments to this effect has been made in para (g) of the memo of petition. In the changed circumstances, since the main residential accommodation had been vacated by the legal heirs of late Dr. D.S.Rana, the stand which was taken by late D.S.Rana that in one of the outhouses his servants are living and in one of the outhouses old furniture is lying has come to an end. In the changed circumstances, the R.C.&E.O. has to make an enquiry afresh regarding the vacancy of the disputed out-houses, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by the two courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded to the R.C.&E.O. with a direction to make an enquiry regarding the vacancy of the disputed outhouses afresh in accordance with law and the Rules framed thereunder. In case, the R.C.&E.O. comes to the conclusion that the accommodation is vacant and the vacancy is declared, he shall further proceed to decide the release/allotment applications in accordance with law. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 5