VED PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard petitioner's counsel Shri Rajesh Tandon as well as learned counsel for the caveator respondents.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 12.5.1998 rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 [hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the review of the order dated 31.12.1997 whereby the accommodation In question was released in favour of the landlord-respondent.

(3.) It is not disputed before the Court that the petitioner is in occupation of the accommodation in question without an order of allotment in his favour. The petitioner himself participated in the proceedings relating to declaration of vacancy and filed his own affidavit admitting that he has been in occupation of the accommodation in question as tenant since 1991 and as the landlord happened to be his relation, he did not think it necessary to obtain any order of allotment. It is also not disputed that building in question is covered by the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After the Full Bench decision of Nutun Kumar's case, 1993 Aft CJ 721, the settled position of law is that any contract of tenancy after the enforcement of the Act made against the provision of Section 11 is void and is not enforceable in law for any purpose. The mere fact that the petitioner was continuing in occupation of accommodation in question with the consent of the landlord would not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the R. C. and E. O. in treating the building as vacant. Under Section 13 of the Act. occupation of such an occupant is unauthorised and the building is deemed to be vacant for the purposes of allotment or release, as the case may be. The R. C. and E. O. after hearing the petitioner also by the order dated 26.12.1997 declared vacancy and subsequently by the order dated 31.12.1997 released the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent. One of the prospective allottees filed writ petition against the said order but the same was dismissed by this Court and in that writ petition, the petitioner was also impleaded as a party.