Hon’ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Deoria upholding the order dated 8.4.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Deoria, District Deoria whereby the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short “the Act”) has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows;

3. An application for release of the disputed shop was filed by the landlord under Section 21 of the Act for settling his son in the business. The application was allowed. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 19.11.2010 holding the need of the landlord to be genuine and bona fide and also held that the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord.

4. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application filed under Section 21 of the Act against the petitioner is not maintainable since he is not a tenant within the meaning of the Act but merely an unauthorized occupant inducted by the landlord without any allotment order in contravention of the Act.

5. He further submitted that the application under Section 21 of the Act can be filed only against a person having a allotment order in his favour. The petitioner cannot be said to be “tenant” as he was inducted without any allotment order in contravention of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nand Lal Chaurasia v. VIth Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh and others, 2003 (6) AWC 5288, wherein it has been held that the landlord leasing out shops in question to the petitioner (of that writ petition) under written agreement in contravention of provisions of Sections 11, 13 and 16 (without allotment order), cannot be said to be ‘tenant’ within the meaning of the Act. Hence, the application for release under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act is not maintainable.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that in view of the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Nutan Kumar and others v. IInd Additional District Judge and others, 2002 (2) ARC 645 and Nanakram v. Kundalrai, AIR 1986 SC 1194, the law laid down in the case of Nand Lal Chaurasia (supra) cannot be said to be a good law.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Saurav Jain appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 2.

8. The only question to be adjudicated upon by this Court as to whether the application under Section 21 of the Act is maintainable against the petitioner who was inducted without an allotment order.

9. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate that the Court below has recorded a very categorical finding that parties are having landlord and tenant relationship. The relationship of landlord-tenant has also been admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of his written statement.

10. Apex Court in the case of the Nutan Kumar and others (supra) while following the decision of Bench of three judges in the case of Nanak Chandra (supra) in paragraphs 7 and 12 has held as follows :

7. In the case of Nanakram v. Kundalrai, (1986) 3 SCC 83, the question was whether a lease in violation of statutory provisions was void. It was held that in the absence of any mandatory provision obliging eviction in case of contravention of the provisions of the Act the lease would not be void and the parties would be bound, as between themselves, to observe the conditions of lease. It was held that neither of them could assail the lease in a proceeding between themselves. This authority was in respect of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, whereunder also the landlord was obliged to inti