MOHD ISHAQ Vs. VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is not the tenant. THE tenant has not filed a petition either. At the outset, on the presentation of the writ petition has come a statemeat that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant ; there is no contract of tenancy between the petitioner and the owner of the accommodation. With these premises began the argument on the writ petition.

(2.) THE owner of the property is one Nisar Ahmad. THE tenant is one Haji Abdul Gaffar. THE petitioner was let into the accommodation without knowledge of the landlord, by the tenant, the aforesaid, Haji Abdul Gaffar.

(3.) EARLIER it has been mentioned that the petitioner, Mohd. Ishaq had been inducted into the accommodation unauthorisedly without the landlord's knowledge by the tenant Haji Abdul Gaffar. There is no controversy, and it is accepted even before this Court, that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. It is relevant to find out the identity of the petitioner. He is the son-in-law of the tenent Haji Abdul Gaffar. The game is thus clear. Whereas the tenant Haji Abdul Gaffar is to be evicted after the landlord's application for release of the accommodation has been allowed, his son-in-law would like to retain it for the family he has married into and frustrate the release application of the landlord under Section 21 of the Act, aforesaid. The fact that the petitioner Mohd. Ishaq is the son-in-law of the tenant can be had from the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 1st March 1983 by which the application of this unauthorised occupant to be impleaded in the proceedings had been rejected. This order of the Prescribed Authority is appended as Annexure ' 5 ' to the writ petition.