JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Atul Dayal, counsel for petitioner and Smt. Anita Srivastava, counsel for contesting respondent. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits, supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit as well as supplementary rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. As agreed between parties, the instant writ petition is finally decided at the stage of admission itself. 3. Controversy arises from an order dated 6.8.2004 passed by Rent Control & Eviction Officer, declaring vacancy in Case No. 46 of 2001, Manik Chandra Tiwari v. Gopi Nath Dubey. A copy of the order is annexed as Annexure 16 to the writ petition. The disputed accommodation which consists of one room along with other amenities, was allotted to petitioner by means of an allotment order dated 13.7.1977. 4. The entire premises bearing municipal No. 123/516 (old), 123/931 (new), Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar, consists of a number of small portions in occupation of different tenants. This premises was purchased by present landlord on 12.2.1990. Petitioner was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. Proceedings before Rent Control & Eviction Officer commenced on an application given by landlord-respondent under Section 15(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 2001 intimating vacancy. Proceedings commenced on the basis of aforesaid application. Rent Control Inspector submitted his report after inspection in accordance with law on 27.6.2001. 5. Landlord filed an affidavit on 3.10.2001 stating therein that tenant-petitioner lived in the disputed room for some time after allotment was made but subsequently he handed over possession to one Ram Babu Gupta, who was also residing in the premises, shifted to House No.123/488, Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar. His parents and brother were residing in this premises but after death of his father, petitioner moved with his brother. 6. The affidavit of landlord was objected by petitioner. However, after exchange of a number of affidavits by respective parties, which were taken in evidence, Rent Control & Eviction Officer declared vacancy on 6.8.2004. 7. Sri Atul Dayal, has pointed out that petitioner is a valid sitting tenant by virtue of an allotment order, therefore, it is not a case where another accommodation has been acquired within municipal area at the subsequent stage. He has also brought to my notice a number of documents to substantiate that petitioner is still residing in the disputed house. Sri Atul Dayal, has pointed out that petitioner is a valid sitting tenant by virtue of an allotment order, therefore, it is not a case where another accommodation has been acquired within municipal area at the subsequent stage. He has also brought to my notice a number of documents to substantiate that petitioner is still residing in the disputed house. No doubt, premises No. 123/488 is situated nearby and alleged ration card was taken subsequent to the allotment order, which has been cancelled. 8. Submission is that since there was an express denial on the part of tenant that he has vacated premises, landlord had to discharge a heavy burden to establish that there exists vacancy. 9. It is further submitted that respondent has failed to discharge his liability. Thus, the order impugned is without any evidence and is liable to be quashed. There is not an iota of evidence that petitioner has substantially removed his effect from premises in dispute. 10. Smt. Anita Srivastava, has disputed this argument and brought to my notice annexure to the counter affidavit to substantiate that Panchshala register commencing from April, 1987 to 1992, thus clearly shows that Kali Shanker is residing in the house where his father was living. She has also annexed ration card to substantiate landlord’s claim as well as supplementary affidavit wherein petitioner has brought on record electricity bill dated 10.8.2008 pursuant to an order dated 11.9.2008 passed by this Court. 11. On perusal of the electricity bill, it clearly shows that it is in the name of one Sri C.B. Gupta, premises No. 123/516, Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar, which is the disputed premises. This electricity bill is admittedly a document brought by petitioner and pertains to the year 2008, which is not in the name of petitioner. 12. Sri Atul Dayal, has tried to explain that Sri C.B. Gupta is his nephew and he also stays in the premises, therefore, electricity bill is in his name. 13. Besides, submission made above, Sri Atul Dayal, has placed reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Ganga Narain v. IInd Additional District Judge and others, 1985 (1) ARC 66. Ratio laid down in this case is that assessment list is not proper for decision or for drawing inference that same is sufficient evidence to come to a definite conclusion. 14. Ratio laid down in this case is that assessment list is not proper for decision or for drawing inference that same is sufficient evidence to come to a definite conclusion. 14. I have perused this judgment as well as order impugned which does not appear that there is any applicability of this case. Since a number of other documents have been relied upon by R.C. & E.O., assessment list is not the sole basis to hold that Kali Shanker Gupta is living in the accommodation where his father used to reside. 15. Second decision cited by petitioner’s counsel is Smt. Kamla Devi v. IInd Additional District Judge Jhansi and others, 2004 (3) AWC 2341 . This case has no applicability to the present case since it relates to Section 16 (2)(b) read with Rule 13 of the Act where landlord sought release of premises on the ground of ‘bonafide need’, which was not considered and Court held that it was injustice to the landlord and Rent Control & Eviction Officer was liable to examine his need. 16. Reliance has also been placed on the question of authenticity of voter list and Kutumb register as held, in the case of Ram Shanker v. Gauri Shanker, 1989 AWC 1343. This Court, in the case of Vinoba Gramoday Sangh, Harbartpur, District Dehradun v. District Judge, Dehradun and others, 1985 (2) ARC 253 was of the view that if premises is found to be locked by Rent Control & Eviction Officer, it is not sufficient to hold that tenant has removed his effect for declaration of vacancy, in absence of any other evidence. This case is not again similar to the present case as there are a number of documents relied upon as well as latest electricity bill, which was brought on record on the direction of this Court in the present case. Electricity bill was issued in the name of another person. Of course, tenant petitioner has tried to explain that the person in whose name, electricity bill was issued as late as in the year 2008 happens to be his nephew. It is immaterial if he is his nephew or any other person related to him but since electricity bill of accommodation in question was not in the name of petitioner, it is evident that someone else is living and petitioner has substantially removed his effect. 17. It is immaterial if he is his nephew or any other person related to him but since electricity bill of accommodation in question was not in the name of petitioner, it is evident that someone else is living and petitioner has substantially removed his effect. 17. Next case cited by petitioner’s counsel is Munna Lal Agarwal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate Mathura and others, 2005 (1) ARC 144. In the said case, proceedings for release were initiated by landlord on 1.10.1991, during that period, the Full Bench decision in the case of Nootan Kumar, permitted landlord to file an application under Section 16 of the Act. However, reversal of the Full Bench decision by the Apex Court changed the entire scenario. In those circumstances, learned Judge had ruled that release under Section 21 of the Act could be filed and not in a case of vacancy under Section 16 of the Act. 18. In the instant case, since vacancy was declared on account of reason that tenant himself has started living with his brother where his father used to live previously, which is situated nearby, therefore, Rent Control & Eviction Officer was of the view that he has substantially removed his effect and vacancy has come in existence. Therefore, I do not agree with contention of petitioner’s counsel. 19. Last case relied upon by petitioner’s counsel is Anil Kumar Dixit v. Smt. Maya Tripathi and another, 2006 (1) ARC 377 wherein it was held by this Court that there is no limitation provided in the Act for allotment or release after vacancy is declared but release application or allotment application should be filed within a reasonable time. 20. Besides, Rent Control & Eviction Officer taking into consideration report of Rent Control Inspector, has basically placed reliance on a number of documents, which was brought before him to substantiate that petitioner Kali Shanker Gupta is residing in House No. 123/156 (old), 123/931 (new), Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar. Vacancy was delcared in respect of one room, varandah, courtyard and common latrine. 21. After going through the judgment impugned, I am of the considered view that Rent Control & Eviction Officer has not committed any manifest error or illegality while coming to a just conclusion on the basis of evidence brought on record before him by the respective parties. 22. 21. After going through the judgment impugned, I am of the considered view that Rent Control & Eviction Officer has not committed any manifest error or illegality while coming to a just conclusion on the basis of evidence brought on record before him by the respective parties. 22. In the instant case, I have already discussed each and every citations on which reliance is placed by Sri Atul Dayal, as they are not attracted to the set of facts of the present case. Petitioner and respondents were permitted to lead evidence. Landlord-respondent had also filed affidavit stating that tenant got electricity connection and ration card from premises No. 123/488, Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar. Petitioner was also permitted to controvert this affidavit. Finally after long drawn proceedings, vacancy was declared on 6.8.2004, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. 23. It is, therefore, evident that petitioner’s counsel has raised factual objection and decisions relied upon by him are not at all relevant to the facts of the present case. Before declaring vacancy, sufficient opportunity was given and a complete procedure was adopted by Rent Controller. Both parties were allowed to produce material and also had occasion of rebuttal. The order impugned was passed on the basis of documents and taking into consideration submission advanced by either parties, which is perfectly legal. Ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be stretched to consider factual aspect, affidavits, counter affidavit and other documents as submitted by petitioner’s counsel. No doubt, this Court had asked for recent electricity bill, which is admittedly not in the name of petitioner. This is an additional fact, which goes a long way to substantiate that contention of petitioner’s counsel is frivolous without any substance and deserve no consideration. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ———