JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-landlord challenges the order dated 23rd August, 2002, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected the release application filed by the landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (In short 'the Act') and the order dated 15th January, 2003, passed by revisional court by which the revisional court dismissed the revision filed by the landlord-petitioner, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-'19' and '21' respectively to the writ petition.
2. In brief the case set up by the petitioner-landlord is that originally Janak Singh was the tenant of the shop in dispute situated in the accommodation in question since before 1975. After the riots which has taken place in the year 1984, Janak Singh has vacated the shop in dispute and handed over the possession of the same to one Jan Mohammad, contesting respondent No. 3 in this petition, who is occupying the shop in dispute without any allotment order. It is further contended that since Janak Singh was occupying the aforesaid shop in dispute without any allotment order, therefore his occupation in the shop in dispute was that of unauthorised occupant. The petitioner-landlord in support of his case filed evidence of quinquennial assessment of the local body concerned for the year 1987-92, wherein Janak Singh, the original tenant was shown as tenant and the name of Jan Mohammad was not shown. By the aforesaid evidence, the petitioner-landlord tries to prove that it was Janak Singh, who was the tenant and Jan Mohammad was in fact not a tenant and he is occupying the shop in dispute without any allotment order. As against the aforesaid case set up by the landlord-petitioner, the contesting respondent Jan Mohammad has pleaded that he is in occupation in the shop in dispute since before 1975. He, in fact, was carrying on the business along with Janak Singh and since Janak Singh was under heavy loans, Jan Mohammad has purchased the machines etc. for a sum of rupees seventeen thousand from Janak Singh and is carrying on the business with the consent of the erstwhile landlord, namely, Mohammad Haroon and there was also an agreement entered into between the Janak Singh and that of Jan Mohammad dated 31st March, 1975 according to which Jan Mohammad was taken as working partner of Janak Singh and that is why initially the rent receipts were issued by the erstwhile landlord in the name of both the partners and after Janak Singh left the shop in dispute, the rent receipts were issued only in the name of contesting respondent Jan Mohammad. Thus, the respondent-tenant Jan Mohammad is tenant of the shop in dispute since before 1975. The contesting respondent-tenant in support of his case filed the receipts of LIC policy, Passbook of chit fund, Bank passbook, electricity bills and receipts of rent dated 31st March, 1975, 1st June, 1976, 1st July, 1976 and 3rd May, 1977 and the agreement dated 31st March, 1975, as well as the receipts of rent which were issued by erstwhile landlord Mohammad Haroon.
3. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the basis of material on record and the pleadings of the parties has arrived at the conclusion that admittedly the contesting respondent-tenant Jan Mohammad is the tenant since he is in occupation of the shop in dispute before 1975, which is before the 5th July, 1976 when U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was amended, therefore it cannot be said that the occupation of Jan Mohammad, the contesting respondent-tenant is that of an unauthorised occupant, as alleged by the petitioner-landlord. Thus, the application filed by the petitioner-landlord was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer vide order dated 23rd August, 2002.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the petitioner-landlord preferred a revision before the revisional court. The revisional court after considering the materials on record have affirmed the findings arrived at by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and dismissed the revision filed by the landlord-petitioner.
5. Before this Court, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-landlord reiterated the same arguments as were argued before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as before the revisional court, but in view of the findings arrived at by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which have been affirmed by the revisional court, I do not find that there is any force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord could not demonstrate that the findings arrived at by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and affirmed by the revisional court suffer from any error, much less manifest error of law, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.