A landlord who breaches the statutory provisions of the Act is disentitled to seek relief under the same Act, and his conduct can be used against him in legal proceedings.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri P. N. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P. K. Srivastava for contesting landlord-respondent No. 3.

( 2 ) THE petitioner admitted his status that of an unauthorised occupant as recorded vide judgment and order dated July 22, 1995 passed by 1st Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in J. S. C. C. Suit No. 54 of 1983. Rajeshwari v. Jagdish, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and thereby defeated the suit filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 for eviction and possession of the petitioner, apart from other reliefs before Judge Small Causes. In the said suit, apparently no plea was raised by either plaintiff or the defendant (i. e. , petitioner and respondent No. 3) that petitioner was in possession of the accommodation in question prior to 5. 7. 1976, i. e. , the date of commencement of Act No. 28 of 1976.

( 3 ) AFTER J. S. C. C. suit aforesaid was decided as not maintainable, the landlord respondent No. 3 filed an application before the delegated authority intimating the vacancy under Section 16 of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter called the Act.

( 4 ) THE Delegated Authority/rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar initiated proceedings for allotment/release of the accommodation in question and in pursuance thereto, an order dated 25. 7. 1996, declaring vacancy with regard to, the accommodation in question was passed.

( 5 ) THE landlord, respondent No. 3 simultaneously, it appears, filed an application for release under Section 16 of the Act taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner admitted him to be an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation in question since let out to him without an allotment Order under the Act and hence the accommodation was to be treated as vacant under the Act and thus the landlord, with his ingenuity attempts to have the matter of release decided unilaterally between him and Rent Control and Eviction Officer (avoiding the tenant-treating him as unauthorised occupant ).

( 6 ) THE judgment and order dated 22. 7. 1995/annexure-1 to the writ petition passed by Judge small Causes Court shows that the tenant-petitioner had admitted that the petitioner took the accommodation in question as tenant from the landlord (respondent No. 3) as per agreement executed between him. The landlord/respondent No. 3 did not intimate vacancy and inducted the petitioner as tenant. The petitioner also without obtaining an allotment order and in breach of the provisions of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) called the Act, took possession of the disputed accommodation and thus the petitioner accepted his status as an unauthorised occupant. On these pleading present petitioner (defendant in J. S. C. C. Suit) argued that he was not tenant and J. S. C. C. Court has no jurisdiction. The Court of Judge Small Causes, relying upon the decision in the case of Nootankumar v. Additional District Judge, 1993 (2) AWC 1090 : AIR 1994 All 298, held that the agreement executed between the landlord and the tenant was in contravention of the statutory provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and, consequently, the Court directed for returning the plaint to the plaintiff-landlord for being presented before competent court.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 3, Sri P. K. Srivastava, states that after return of the plaint, no suit for the eviction of the tenant was instituted before any Court.

( 8 ) THIS also shows that the landlord (respondent No. 3) did accept the petitioner his tenant and to whom he gave possession of the accommodation in question in contravention of the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

( 9 ) FROM the above, it is clear that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 colluded with each other, abetted with each other; in complicity to perpetuate fraud on law and their conduct is in cl