Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) The petitioner occupies a Shop No. 57/62 at Neel Wali Gali, Kanpur, Kanpur. He entered this shop, he says, upon an invitation from the erstwhile tenant one Munna son of Ibrahim. Munna had been the tenant of this shop for 12 years. The petitioner contends that in 1975 he joined Munna as a partner in business. Munna died and the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the shop. Munna's wife otherwise entitled to claim tenancy in her own right within the meaning of Section 3-G of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 apparently did not contest the matter and at some stage lost interest in this shop. She did file an affidavit in March, 1983 before the Additional City Magistrate (II), Kanpur in Vacancy Case No. 17 of 1983 but specifically did not claim tenancy in her own right and a perusal of the affidavit reveals as if she was attempting to regularise occupation of the petitioner and for tenancy being conferred upon him. The authorities below have considered the case of the petitioner, as stated earlier the matter was not contested by the widow of the erstwhile tenant who had occupied the shop in his own right for about 50 years.
(2.) The petitioner initially submitted that his occupation of the shop was valid on the ground that he was in partnership with the erstwhile tenant Munna. This plea is misconceived. Partnership according to the petitioner began in 1975. In 1975 the petitioner was 16 years of age. His age as given in the affidavit supporting the petition is 28 years. Thus any contract which he may have entered into in a relationship of partnership was voidable.
(3.) Secondly the other submission is that the landlord accepted him as a tenant. Unfortunately the landlord has not appeared before the authorities. Notices were sent to him and he did not respond. The Court below as an abundant caution took recourse to the exercise of service by publication. Even then the landlord chose to remain outside. The proceedings which were engaging the authorities, is the matter of vacancy, in reference to the accommodation in dispute. Thus, it was presumed by the Courts below that the landlord would not nominate the petitioner as tenant.;