JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—In this bunch of writ petitions, petitioners claim that they are tenants in disputed accommodation with the consent and knowledge of the previous landlord, who had been regularly accepting rent from petitioners. The rent was being noted in the diary maintained by him for the said purpose. Said premises is big Ahata having 35 tenants, each having one or two rooms in their possession. The condition of building is unhygienic made of mud mortar and the roof of the rooms is old khaprail. The building in question is situated in an area which is mostly occupied by poors, scheduled caste and backward class people and closed to a Nala. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, son and father, purchased the said premises in question on 27.10.2005. After the purchase of the aforementioned property, proceedings under Section 16 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, were initiated against all the 35 tenants, claiming vacancy in the respective accommodations on same common ground, that these 35 tenants were in unlawful occupation of their respective portions and the same are vacant. It was also stated that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 would carry cloth business. Against the said proceedings, petitioners filed their objections, taking specific plea that they had been occupying the premises since prior to 1977, and further it was mentioned that with their family members, they were staying in the premises in question and new purchasers were builders and were putting undue pressure for evicting petitioners from the premises in question, for which proceedings under Sections 107/116, Cr.P.C. were also initiated. The petitioners took specific stand that they were in peaceful possession of the premises in dispute, and in this background proceeding under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act was not justifiable. On 6.2.2007 vacancy was declared and then release order was passed on 3.5.2007. Against said orders, petitioners filed revision. Said revision has been dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. Said revision has been dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the writ petition. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petitions have been taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. Parties to the dispute have agreed to the writ petition No. 40144 of 2007 being taken up as leading case and all the writ petitions being decided by a common judgment. This is how all the writ petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 4. Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended with vehemence that in the present case, petitioners were tenant of the premises in question for more than 20 years and the erstwhile landlord never took any action nor sent any notice for initiating any action against the petitioners. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are builders, are trying to grab the property and evict the petitioners by unlawful means by taking cover of the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, and here, in the present case Rent Control and Eviction Officer mechanically proceeded to accept the claim of landlord, ignoring the long standing possession of petitioners; as such orders passed are unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 5. Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, appearing with Sri Ankush Tandon, Advocate, contended that in the present case, petitioners are unauthorised occupants and rightful view has been taken, which warrants no interference. 6. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges in the present case is that as far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, they have come into picture for the first time on 27.10.2005, and as far as petitioners are concerned, their specific case has been that they have been staying in the premises in question for the last more than 20 years, and at no point of time erstwhile landlord raised any objection in respect of their tenancy and never made any complaint that rent was not paid or the petitioners were unauthorised occupants. This is admitted position that erstwhile landlord never initiated any action against petitioner and this fact has to be admitted, once there is nothing contrary on record. This is admitted position that erstwhile landlord never initiated any action against petitioner and this fact has to be admitted, once there is nothing contrary on record. The current landlord immediately after expiry of few months moved application under Section 16 (1)(b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, for release of the building in question. In the release application, which was so filed, objection had been taken by petitioners wherein specific case has been that possession is very very long and during all these years erstwhile landlord took no action and to the contrary rent was being paid to him and the same was being accepted by him by making entries in this behalf in the diary. The order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in leading writ petition has been perused. Said order proceeds to mention that earlier Mata Prasad was tenant in disputed portion and when he left the premises, he handed over its possession to Smt. Jamuna Devi and she was occupying the premises without any order of allotment. In support of his case affidavit was filed by landlord mentioning that in quinquennial assessment for 1973-78 one Mata Prasad was shown as tenant and thereafter Jamuna Devi was unauthorised occupant. Rent Control and Eviction Officer proceeded to mention that without consent of the landlord possession was handed over to Smt. Jamuna Devi and she is unauthorised occupant. Once erstwhile landlord did not take any action against the tenants in question for all these years, then drawing adverse inference of possession by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is totally unjustifiable. Petitioners had filed documentary evidence to show and suggest that possession was there. Rent Control and Eviction Officer has proceeded to mention that there was no valid tenancy, and petitioners were unauthorised occupant, as such vacancy was declared. Rent Control and Eviction Officer failed to record finding on the fact, as to at what point of time, petitioner came in possession of the premises in question. 7. Tenor of the order clearly reflects that totally one sided approach has been adopted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without caring to see that other side also had to say something in the matter. 7. Tenor of the order clearly reflects that totally one sided approach has been adopted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without caring to see that other side also had to say something in the matter. Rent Control and Eviction Officer was totally unaware of the proposition of law on this point as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mansa Ram v. S.P. Pathak and others, 1984(1) ARC 17, wherein view was taken that when power is conferred to effectuate any purpose, it has to be exercised in reasonable manner. Reasonable exercise here inheres its exercise within a reasonable time. This view has been followed by this Court in the case of Brij Bala Jain v. Amar Jeet Kaur, 1996 (2) ARC 474. Paragraphs10 and 11 of the said judgment being relevant are being extracted below : “10. In case the tenant had taken any person as partner after enforcement of the Act, who is not a member of the family, the petitioner could have taken steps for declaration of vacancy for violation of Section 12 (2) by the tenant. It is true that there is no limitation for taking such steps either by the landlord or by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Where the Act does not provide for specific limitation for taken such action, the Court has held in various decisions that it should be within a reasonable time. In Mansa Ram v. S.P. Pathak and others, 1984(1) ARC 17, wherein the landlord had permitted to occupy the person in violation of Order XXII of Central Provinces and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that when the power is conferred to effectuate a purpose, it has to be exercised in a reasonable time and made the following observation : “Exercise of power in a reasonable manner inheres the concept of its exercise within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, no limitation is prescribed in this behalf but one would stand aghast that a landlord to some extent in pari delicto could turn the tables against the person who was in possession for 22 years as a tenant. Undoubtedly, no limitation is prescribed in this behalf but one would stand aghast that a landlord to some extent in pari delicto could turn the tables against the person who was in possession for 22 years as a tenant. In such a situation, even though the House Allotment Officer was to reach an affirmative conclusion that the initial entry 22 years back was an unauthorised entry and that failure to vacate premises till 9 years after retirement was not proper, yet it was not obligatory upon him to pass a peremptory order of eviction in the manner in which he has done. In such a situation, it would be open to him not to evict the appellant.” “11. What should be taken as reasonable time for initiating proceedings under a Statute, when it does not provide for any limitation will depend upon various factors viz the mischief should to be removed, the remedial measures to be taken against an action or the nature of the benefit conferred on the parties under the statute. In any case, twelve years period should be taken as reasonable time for initiating the proceedings under the Statute from the date cause of action arises for taking action. The period may be extended in exceptional circumstances which has to be proved by the person who initiates the proceedings after twelve years.” 8. Recently in the case of Anil Kumar Dixit v. Smt. Maya Tripathi and another, 2006 (1) ARC 377 . Again such judgment has been followed in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment, it has been held as under: “5. It is also correct that no limitation for initiating proceedings for declaration of deemed vacancy and allotment/release under Section 12 and 16 of the Act has been provided. However, even if no limitation is provided application will have to be filed within reasonable time. This is what has precisely been held by the Supreme Court in Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak and others, 1984 (1) ARC, 17 : AIR 1983 SC 1239 . In Brij Bala Jain v. Amar Jeet Kaur, (1996(2) ARC 474). Similar view has been taken after following the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court reported in Mansha Ram (supra). This is what has precisely been held by the Supreme Court in Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak and others, 1984 (1) ARC, 17 : AIR 1983 SC 1239 . In Brij Bala Jain v. Amar Jeet Kaur, (1996(2) ARC 474). Similar view has been taken after following the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court reported in Mansha Ram (supra). In para 11 of Brij Bala Jain’s case (supra) it has been held that “in any case 12 years period should be taken as reasonable time for initiating the proceedings under the Statute from the date cause of action arises for taking action........” 6. Accordingly I hold that the proceedings were barred by time, Writ Petition is therefore, allowed. Impugned judgment and order declaring the vacancy is set aside.” 9. In the present case, Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not at all touched the question as to whether proceedings in question were barred by time and specially in the circumstances when in the past earlier landlord, during all these years of stay, had not taken any action against the petitioners, qua which petitioners have contended that rent was being regularly paid to the landlord and the landlord had no grievance at all. Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not even cared to see the length of possession of the petitioners and in most mechanical manner has proceeded to pass order declaring vacancy. Such an order without undertaking any real exercise cannot be subscribed, as such order of Release as affirmed in Revision is equally unjustifiable, as the same is subsequent order. 10. Consequently, Writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Order declaring vacancy is quashed and set aside. Subsequent order of release as affirmed in revision are also quashed and set aside. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to rehear the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that case of the parties be dealt with and whatever issues are raised, same be answered instead of proceeding to decide the matter in cryptic manner, after providing full opportunity to petitioners as well as to the respondents. It is made clear that case of the parties be dealt with and whatever issues are raised, same be answered instead of proceeding to decide the matter in cryptic manner, after providing full opportunity to petitioners as well as to the respondents. ———— IMPORTANT INFORMATION—REGARDING DECISION OF HIGH COURT—AS PER SUPREME COURT Editorial Note.—Against the decision dated 19.9.2008 of the Honble High Court, Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 61 of 2009, directed for maintainance of status quo, after issuing notice to parties and stayed further proceedings after remand. ————