3. The facts are not in dispute. Originally petitioner/mother-in-law was the tenant under one Mr. Dhruv Goyal. The marriage between opposite party no. 3 and son of the petitioner took place and they resided there for sometime. However, because of matrimonial discord, in the meantime, decree of divorce has been granted by the competent Civil Court dissolving marriage between opposite party no. 3 and the petitioner’s son. When the matter instituted, opposite party no. 3 filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 15 of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Rent Eviction) Act 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act 1972 for brevity) for declaring the tenanted premises in which she is residing, as to be a deemed vacancy and to allot it in her favour as a tenant. The application was allowed by the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun against which a revision was preferred to the Court of learned District Judge which was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge/ F.T.C. 3rd Dehradun and was registered as Revision No. 98 of 2000. In the revision application also, the petitioner could not satisfy the Court, hence, the revisional court dismissed the revision application. Such orders have been challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India.
