- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of the prescribed Authority dated 20. 10. 1993 whereby he allowed the release applica tion filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "the Act") and the order dated 20. 5. 1995 affirming the said order in revision passed by respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 is landlord of House No. 302, Mohalla Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur. THE petitioner is tenant 6fsr portion of this house consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that he retired in July 1981 from the post of P. A. in the Aligarh Muslim University. He is residing in a rented house after his retirement at Aligarh. THEre was a partition in his family and he got eastern portion of House No. 302, Mohalla Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur. He wants to live in the disputed house. He has married his four daughters and his fifth daughter, who is mentally retarded, is permanently living within them. The petitioner constested the application and denied that the need of landlord-respondent No. 3 was bona fide and genuine. He is residing at Aligarh in a rented house and there is no reason that he should live at Shah jahanpur. He is carrying on part-time job at Aligarh. The prescribed authority allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 and recorded a finding that the respondent No. 3 has retired from ser vice in July 1981 and is living at Aligarh in a rented house. He requires the disputed house for his residential purposes. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of the prescribed Authority and the appeal has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by order dated 20. 5. 1995.
(3.) I have heard Sri R. Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the accommodation in question was taken on rent without any allotment order being passed in his favour. The contract was void as it was against the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act. It is urged that though the possession of the petitioner can be treated as unauthorised under Section 13 of the Act, he cannot be treated as a tenant. The application under Section 21 can be filed only against a tenant. The status of the petitioner shall be that of an unauthorised occupant and not that of a tenant. The application filed by respondent No. 3 is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon Full Bench decision of this Court, Nutan Kumar and others Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and others 1994 A. L. J. 999, wherein it was held that an agreement offending a statute or public policy or forbidden by law is not merely void by it is invalid from the nativity. The agreement of lease between landlord and tenant without any allotment order being passed is inconsistent with statutory provisions of Section 11 of the Act. It was held that as the agreement of tenancy is incon sistent in law, no decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord in a suit filed by him against such a tenant.;