- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 16-4-1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereby the disputed ac commodation has been declared as vacant.
(2.) THE version of the petitioner is that he has inducted as tenant by the landlady-Respondent No. 2 is the dis puted accommodation. An agreement of rent was executed between the parties on 7-10-1984. THE landlady-Respondent No. 2, however, wanted to evict the petitioner by force. He filed Suit No. 434 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar restraining her dispossess ing him from the accommodation in dis pute otherwise than in due course of law. THE house in question was constructed in the year 1987 and the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) were not applicable. Respondent No. 3 filed an applica tion for allotment with the allegations that the petitioner was in unauthorised oc cupation without an allotment order and it should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Inspector submitted report that he was residing in the disputed accommodation without any allotment order and it should be treated as vacant. The petitioner filed objection to the said report and contended that he was inducted as tenant by the landlady-Respondent No. 2. The premises was taken on rent and as the disputed construction was made in the year 1987 the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. He cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant. Respondent No. 2 submitted a reply to the objection. It was stated that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1963 and the first floor of the same premises was constructed in the year 1969. It was assessed in the year 1963 and the provisions of the Act were applicable. One Harish Chand Srivastava was a tenant but he illegally passed on possession to the petitioner and he is unauthorised oc cupant. She denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant be tween her and the petitioner. She never entered into agreement of tenancy with the petitioner. The Rent Control and Evic tion Officer after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the disputed accommodation was con structed in the year 1963. The provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable and the petitioner occupied the premises without any allotment order passed in his favour and his possession was unauthorised and declared it vacant by the impugned order dated 16-4-1999. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondent.
(3.) THERE is a controversy as to whether the petitioner was inducted as tenant by the landlady- respondent. The petitioner has relied upon an agreement dated 7-2-1994. Respondent No. 2, has denied that any such agreement was ex ecuted. The agreement, however, does not bear her signature. Her version was that one Harish Chandra Srivastava was tenant and he illegally transferred pos session of the disputed accommodation to the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit any rent receipt or any other docu ment to prove that he was tenant of respondent No. 2. Even otherwise a person in posses sion/occupation without any allotment order being passed in his favour under Section 16 (l) (a) of the Act by the District Magistrate/rent Control and Eviction Of ficer, his possession shall be treated as unauthorised in violation of Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act. Any agree ment of tenancy between the landlord and tenant will be void in contravention of the said provision vide Nutan Kumar v. IInd Additional District Judge, 1993 (22) ALR 437 (FB ).;