JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition being Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who alleges himself to be a tenant in the accommodation in dispute, was inducted in the year 1986, challenged the order dated 19.6.1998, passed by the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control and Eviction Officer), Muzaffarnagar in Case No, 38 of 1996, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, whereby the accommodation in dispute has been deemed to be declared vacant and the petitioner Anand Prakash has been declared to be an un-authorised occupant. One Pankaj Kumar Jain filed application enumerating the facts that the accommodation in dispute was constructed in the year 1970 and it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he occupied the said accommodation in dispute with the consent of the landlord in the year 1986. Petitioner has set up his case before the prescribed authority that in fact, the accommodation in dispute was constructed in the year 1970 and was subsequently altered by the landlord in the year 1980. This fact is admitted by both the parties, namely, the petitioner as well as the landlord that the petitioner Anand Prakash came into occupation in the accommodation in dispute in the year 1986. The prescribed authority, after considering the pleadings and evidence on record, has arrived at the finding that the accommodation in dispute was constructed in the year 1970. This fact is also on record on the Assessment Register, which clearly demonstrates that the accommodation in dispute was constructed in the year 1970. The prescribed authority has further held that the accommodation in dispute has been constructed in the year 1970 and petitioner is in possession of the said accommodation from the year 1986. It is the petitioner, who should get allotted the said accommodation in his favour before taking it on rent, but he has not done so, therefore, Anand Prakash is an un-authorised occupant in the aforesaid accommodation and the same is liable to be vacant. In the teeth of this finding, it cannot be assailed, therefore, I find no illegality in the order dated 19.6.1998, whereby the petitioner Anand Prakash has been declared to be an un-authorised occupant and the accommodation in dispute has been declared to be vacant.
2. In this view of the matter, this writ petition, fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
3. The case set up by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 41556 of 1997 is that the landlord-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application purporting to be an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'), for the release of the accommodation in dispute for his alleged bona fide requirement. This application was contested by the petitioner Anand Prakash, to whom the landlord has admitted to be a tenant by a contract, on the ground that the need set up by the landlord is neither bona fate, not the tilt of the comparative hardship can be said to be, in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the landlord. The prescribed authority vide its order dated 14.3.1995, Annexure-8 to the writ petition rejected the aforesaid application filed by the landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the appellate authority, which was ultimately allowed, hence this writ petition.
4. In Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998 connected along with this petition, since I have held as also the order passed by the prescribed authority that in view of the reasons given in the order of the prescribed authority, the accommodation in dispute is deemed to be vacant and the petitioner cannot be said to be a statutory tenant against whom an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act can be said to be maintainable. This view of mine finds support with the case of Nutan Kumar v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and Anr., 1993 (2) AWC 1090 (FB) : 1993 (2) ARC 204, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that the contract entered into between the parties, namely, the landlord and the petitioner, cannot bind the statutory purpose under the Act. The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that there was an agreement between the landlord and the tenant and since this type of agreement has been held to be contrary to the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act, the application of the landlord has come into play and as I have already held that according to the order of the prescribed authority, there is a deemed vacancy and Anand Prakash, the petitioner has been held to be an un-authorised occupant, this application filed by the landlord against Anand Prakash is not maintainable and any relief cannot be granted to either the landlord or the petitioner.
5. In this view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is disposed of finally. The interim order, if any, stands vacated.
6. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition No. 27849 of 1998 is dismissed and Writ Petition No. 41556 of 1997 is finally disposed of.