JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ajai Rajendra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2. 2. It is contended that in the garb of considering Release Application filed by respondent-landlord, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as “RCEO”) cannot decide the status of relationship of petitioner vis-a-vis his parents as that would amount to decide a pure civil dispute of status of relationship which is within the competence of Civil Court and not the summery proceedings before District Magistrate. 3. Sri B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if what the petitioner has said is treated to be correct, it has come on record that petitioner’s one of the sons has separated himself and is residing in independent building in the same city and therefore also there is deemed vacancy in premises in question. 4. However, in my view, writ petition deserves to succeed. In exercise of summery jurisdiction under Section 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”), RECO cannot decide complex civil dispute relating to relationship of petitioner who is in possession of property vis-a-vis his parents as to whether relationship actually existed or not and whether petitioner, who is in possession of property in dispute, is the legal heir of those who are claiming allotment. 5. It is not disputed that the issue relating to relationship of petitioner vis-a-vis his parents was a substantial civil dispute and without deciding the same, the RCEO could not have decided the question whether the premises in question is deemed vacant or not so as to declare a vacancy therein. Sri B.N. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner could not place anything to support that such a complex civil dispute could have been decided by RCEO in a summery proceeding. He relied on Apex Court’s decision in Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VI Additional District Judge and others, 1998 (1) ARC 109 (para 12), but I do not find that the said decision throws any light on the kind of issue up for consideration before this Court since the dispute and issues involved before Apex Court in the said judgment were totally different. 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.9.1997 (Annexure 11 to writ petition) is hereby quashed. ——————