IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1348 of 2009 (M/S) [ Smt. Prem Bala W/o Shri J.S. Ramola R/o Below Back, Mall Road, Mussoorie, Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. Anil Swarup 2. Alok Swarup Both sons of late Sri Kunwar Vinod Kumar Singh 3. Smt. Surendra Rani W/o late Sri Kunwar Vinod Kumar Singh All R/o Rajbhawan Bhopa Road, District Muzzafarnagar, U.P. 4. Satish Kumar Karla S/o late Sri G.D. Kalra Presently residing at Sarila Lodge Kulri, Mussoorie, District Dehradun. ...………… Respondents Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of 2 certiorari quashing the order dated 17.05.2007, passed by Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie (for short RC&EO), in Case No. 04 of 2004, and order dated 24.07.2009, passed by the revisional authority (District Judge, Dehradun), in Rent Control Revision No. 118 of 2008, whereby the order passed by the RC&EO is affirmed, by said authority. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant in the accommodation in question known as Eastern Flat, Billow Back, Mall Road, Mussoorie. Earlier, she and her husband were posted in Mussoorie. They were transferred from Mussoorie, and finally retired from the service. There is categorical finding of fact recorded by the RC&EO, Mussoorie and the District Judge, Dehradun, that the petitioner has got constructed a house in Rajpur Raod, Dehradun, and lives there with family. Under Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, deemed vacancy has been declared by the RC&EO, and thereafter, on application of the respondent landlords, the property has been released in favour of the landlord. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 12(3-A) of aforesaid Act applies only to the transferred employees and not to the retired employees. 3 It is further contended that house constructed by the petitioner is not situated within the municipal limits of Mussoorie. 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the detailed impugned orders passed by the authorities below, this Court finds that the petitioner had already been transferred from Mussoorie, and thereafter, she is retired also, as such, the above argument is of no help to the petitioner. Apart from this, this Court should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below, in its writ jurisdiction / supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. 6) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, summarily. (Stay Application No. 7128 of 2009 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 19, 2009. H. Negi