S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is a dispute between father-in-law (original petitioner) and son-in-law (respondent No. 1) in respect of shop bearing No. 6. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before R.C. and E.O. for allotment of the shop in dispute on 2.12.1987 alleging therein that Sarla Devi (respondent No. 3) was the tenant of the said shop and she intended to vacate. Sarla Devi supported the respondent No. 1. Original landlord-respondent No. 2 Om Prakash Chaddha did not file any objection. Accordingly, vacancy was declared by R.C. and E.O. on 3.2.1988 and the shop was allotted to respondent No. 1 through order dated 13.6.1988 passed by R.C. and E.O./A.C.M. (VI), Kanpur in Case No. 351 of 1987, Shyam Karan Chandel v. Sasrla Devi.
(2.) Petitioner filed a review petition before R.C. and E.O. under Section 16(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on 11.7.1988 (Case No. 103 of 1988) alleging therein that he was the actual tenant of the shop in dispute and not Sarla Devi and ail the proceedings were collusive and without any notice to him. Petitioner also asserted that in pursuance of allotment order dated 13.6.1988 his son-in-law respondent No. 1 forcibly dispossessed him on 15.6.1988. (However, according to respondent No. 1 he took peaceful possession on 15.6.1988 from Sarla Devi the actual tenant). Review petition was rejected on 16.12.1988. Against the said order petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 9 of 1989 which was also dismissed by VIth A.D.J., Kanpur on 17.12.1991 hence this writ petition.
(3.) Review petition and revision of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that according to his own case he was unauthorized occupant in the sense that he had been let out the shop in dispute by the landlord without any allotment order hence he was not entitled to file review.;