M.P. Singh, J.

1. Admittedly, one Smt. Kalawati was the tenant of the premises in dispute. She was married to Jeet Singh, who expired in 1965; she died in the year 1987.

2. The land lord opposite party No. 3 filed an application under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for release of the accommodation on the ground that after the death of the sitting tenant Smt. Kalawati, the accommodation had fallen vacant. Petitioner Dhan Bahadur was in illegal occupation of the same. Vacancy may be declared and after that the said accommodation may be released in his favour.

3. The said application was contested by the Petitioner on the ground that after the death of Jeet Singh in the year 1965, Smt. Kalawati remarried the Petitioner and since then they had been living as husband and wife. On 4-1-1987 when Smt. Kalawati died, he inherited the tenancy as her heir.

4. A report of Rent Control Inspector was obtained on 13-2-1987. It was stated in the said report that the accommodation was found locked and the Petitioner was said to be in unauthorised occupation of the same.

5. After receiving the report from the Rent Control Inspector, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued notice to the Petitioner. He filed his objection stating that Smt. Kalawati was his legally wedded wife. He was a joint tenant alongwith her and after her death he became the tenant of the accommodation. There was no vacancy. The application for release was not maintainable.

6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the revisional court held that the Petitioner was not the husband of Smt Kalawati. He was in unauthorised occupation of the accommodation, and accordingly the vacancy was declared. Thereafter, on 31-7-1989 an order of release was passed under Section 16(1)(b) in favour of the landlord. The need of the landlord was held to be bonafide.

7. Against the order of the revisional court the present writ petition has been filed by Dhan Bahadur challenging both the orders.

8. The only question to be taken into consideration in this petition is whether Smt. Kalawati had married the Petitioner after the death of her husband Jeet Singh in 1965, and the Petitioner would inherit the tenancy after the death of Smt. Kalawati in 1987.

9. In support of his case the Petitioner has filed some receipts, showing the payment of rent, issued in his name, photo-stat copy of the ration card of two units was also filed by him.

10. The landlord filed his own affidavit and a copy of the voter-list (paper No. 38-K) for the year 1986-87 wherein Smt. Kalawati has been shown as wife of Jeet Singh residing in house No. 122 Dakra Bazar. In the same list, the name of Dhan Bahadur S/o More Man is also mentioned. A copy of the Khatauni in respect of agricultural land left by Jeet Singh has also been filed which shows the name of Smt. Kalawati as widow of Jeet Singh. Similarly, copy of the death certificate also shows Smt. Kalawati as W/o Jeet Singh.

11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made reference to the cases reported in Bira Jena v. Tauli Devi : AIR 1972 Ori 143 [LQ/OriHC/1971/208] , Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan : AIR 1929 PC 135 [LQ/PC/1929/25] and Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumar AIR 1952 SC 231 [LQ/SC/1952/33] for the proposition that in case if a man and a woman have been living together for a long time then there would be a presumption of marriage.

12. In the case of Gokal Chand (supra) the Supreme Court has held that continuous cohabitation of a man and a woman as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years may raise the presumption, which may be drawn from long cohabitation. But it is rebuttable, and if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that presumption, the court cannot ignore them.

13. In the instant case, Dhan Bahadur has raised the plea of relationship only in the present proceedings. Even in the application for registering the death of Smt. Kalawati and in the intimation given to Cantonment Board, he did not disclose any where that Smt. Kalawati was his wife. In the death certificate also, Smt. Kalawati was shown as wife of Jeet Singh and not of Dhan Bahadur. This entry must have been got recorded by Dhan Bahadur himself in the year 1987 when she died. Thus, the presumption of marriage as referred to in the case of Gokal Chand (supra) has completely been destroyed by the Petitioners conduct himself. He has placed reliance upon certain receipts issued from his department. No reliance can be placed on the same as they have been obtained practically in the same period when the controversy for vacancy has arisen.

14. In addition to his case of being the husband of Smt. Kalawati, the Petitioner has pleaded in the alternative his right of being a joint tenant with Smt. Kalawati at the time of her death. In support of his contention, he relied upon the rent-receipts issued to him by the landlord. But these receipts were with regard to the premises numbered as 88, Dakra Bazar which also belonged to the landlord, whereas the accommodation in dispute is a different one and is numbered as 122, Dakra Bazar. Thus, they were wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the present case. Another important aspect of the case is that the Petitioner has led no evidence to show that he was occupying the said accommodation as a joint tenant with Smt. Kalawati at the time of her death. Accordingly, he is not entitled for any protection under this provision as well. There is no evidence regarding consent of the landlord when he was said to be admitted as a joint tenant.

15. After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perusing the record. I am satisfied that the findings recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Petitioner is not the husband of Smt. Kalawati and he was not occupying the accommodation as a joint tenant with Smt. Kalawati at the time of her death. These findings are findings of fact and the same cannot be interfered by this Court as under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court is not sitting as a Court of appeal but is exercising only the supervisory jurisdiction.

16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the rent receipts (annexure-4, 5, 6 and 7) have not been considered by the revisional court, which I find as incorrect. The revisional authority did consider these receipts and recorded a clear finding that they related to another accommodation. The learned Counsel referred to the case reported in 1983 (1) ARC793 Rajendra Kumar v. Additional District Judge in support of his contention that he being in possession became the tenant. In that case the landlady permitted the Petitioner to remain in the disputed premises since 1965 and accepted rent from him But, the rent receipts were issued in the name of the person who was no more in possession. The Petitioner filed an application for regularisation of tenancy under Section 14 of the Act. The landlady denied about her consent being given to the Petitioner for occupying the said premises. The Court took the view that the landlady had consented to the possession of the Petitioner. Consequently, she was estopped from taking a different stand. The application for regularisation of the tenancy under Section 14 of the Act was allowed. Practically similar view has been taken in other cases reported in G.C. Bhattacharya v. State of U.P.1986 (1) ARC 409 [LQ/AllHC/1986/146] and Rajendra Prasad Dubey, Advocate v. 1st Additional District Judge 1988 (2) ARC253. But all the three authorities are distinguishable on the facts of the present case in as much as there is no evidence to show that the landlord has ever consented for occupation of the Petitioner in his accommodation. Even it cannot be inferred from any circumstance. The entire emphasis was laid on the fact that rent receipts were issued and as such the landlord accepted the Petitioner as tenant. It has already been stated above that these receipts did not relate to premises No. 122 Dakra Bazar but they related to 88, Dakra Bazar which was a different premises. The authorities cited above have absolutely no bearing to the facts of the present case.

17. The findings recorded by the two authorities below are that the Petitioner was not the husband of Smt. Kalawati. He could not inherit the tenancy. He was not in joint possession alongwith Smt. Kalawati on the date of her death. There was no consent by the landlord and the position of the Petitioner was that of an unauthorised occupant. All these findings are finding of fact and require no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

18. I find no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.