(1.) Heard petitioner's counsel Shrl A, K. Gaur and Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the caveator- res pendent.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.8.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur whereby the premises in question has been declared vacant on the ground of the same being in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is in occupation of the building in question on the basis of order of allotment. Learned counsel for the caveator invited the attention of the Court to the own statement of the petitioner made before the Rent Control Inspector that he is in occupation of the building in question for the last about four years. It was not the case of the petitioner before the Rent Control Officer nor it has been claimed in the writ petition here that the petitioner has been in occupation of the accommodation in question since before the commencement of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It has already been held by me in the case of Km. Rajni Mishra and another v. Additional District Judge, Agra and others, 1998 (2) ARC 42, that after the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nutun Kumar's cose. 1993 All CJ 721. the settled position of the law is that after the enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, any letting made in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act is illegal and void and the tenanted accommodation would be deemed to be vacant and open for allotment or release, as the case may be. Any contract of tenancy entered into between the landlord and the tenant after the enforcement of the Act is void and does not take away the right of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to treat the building as vacant and accordingly an order of allotment or release can legally be passed in respect of such a building. In the present case, as has been pointed out above, it was the own admission of the petitioner before the authority below that he has been In occupation of the disputed property only for the last about four years. In the writ petition, there is no averment contrary to this. It would thus be seen that even as per the own case of the petitioner, he came in occupation of the disputed shop as a tenant after the enforcement of the Act without an order of allotment in his favour with the result that under law vacancy stood created.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case, no order of allotment was necessary as U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. It suffices to mention here that no such case was either raised by the petitioner before the authority below nor it has been so pleaded in the present writ petition. In the statement given before the Court below, the petitioner admitted himself that disputed shop was an old construction. The scheme of the Act indicates that the Act applies to every building unless the operation of the Act is exempted under the provisions of Section 2 of the Act.