JUDGMENT R.S. DHAVAN, J. 1. THE petitioner is not the tenant. THE tenant has not filed a petition either. At the outset, on the presentation of the writ petition has come a statement that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant; there is no contract of tenancy between the petitioner and the owner of the accommodation. With these premises began the argument on the writ petition. 2. THE owner of the property is one Nisar Ahmad. THE tenant is one Haji Abdul Gaffar. THE petitioner was let into the accommodation without knowledge of the landlord, by the tenant, the aforesaid, Haji Abdul Gaffar. The landlord sought the release of the accommodation for personal use and occupation under Section 21 of the Act, aforesaid. . The Prescribed Authority, upon examining the issues before him on merits, released the accommodation to the landlord. 3. IN appeal, under Section 22 of the Act, the decision of the Prescribed Authority, was affirmed by 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur on 9th April 1987. The premises occupied by and tenanted to Haji Abdul Gaflar were released to the landlord Nisar Ahmad 4. EARLIER it has been mentioned that the petitioner, Mohd. Ishaq had been inducted into the accommodation unauthorisedly without the landlord's knowledge by the tenant Haji Abdul Gaffar. There is no controversy, and it is accepted even before this Court, that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. It is relevant to find out the identity of the petitioner. He is the son-in-law of the tenent Haji Abdul Gaffar. The game is thus clear. Whereas the tenant Haji Abdul Gaffar is to be evicted after the landlord's application for release of the accommodation has been allowed, his son-in-law would like to retain it for the family he has married into and frustrate the release application of the landlord under Section 21 of the Act, aforesaid. The fact that the petitioner Mohd. Ishaq is the son-in-law of the tenant can be had from the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 1st March 1983 by which the application of this unauthorised occupant to be impleaded in the proceedings had been rejected. This order of the Prescribed Authority is appended as Annexure 5' to the writ petition. What is contended at the Bar in the present writ petition is that the unauthorised occupant has a better title to retain possession of the property than even its true owner the landlord. This order of the Prescribed Authority is appended as Annexure 5' to the writ petition. What is contended at the Bar in the present writ petition is that the unauthorised occupant has a better title to retain possession of the property than even its true owner the landlord. 5. IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner, the unauthorised occupant, that the property in question has been subject to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Acquisition Act) that the landlord has lost all title on this property and that the State recognises the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant and receives recurring damages as penalty for use and occupation by him. 6. THOUGH the Prescribed Authority declined to implead the petitioner as a party to the proceedings, holding him as an unauthorised occupant, the petitioner entered the appeal as appellant No. 2 before the 8th Additional District Judge. The appeal was thus joint when instituted by his father-in-law the tenant. The petitioner virtually contested the appeal as an unauthorised occupant to frustrate the release of accommodation to the landlord under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Even this writ petition is by the unauthorised occupant, not by the tenant. The petitioner as an unauthorised occupant takes advantage of a notice dated 27th November 1981 sent by the Kanpur Development Authority by which the petitioner is warned that he is in illegal occupation of the premises and in pursuance of this illegal occupation the petitioner was directed by the Kanpur Development Authority to vacate his illegal occupation failing which he is liable to pay recurring penalty for use and occupation of the premises. The petitioner, claims that this notice confers a right upon him to hold to the premises till he is evicted by the Kanpur Development Authority and that the landlord had no locus standi in seeking eviction either of the tenant or of the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant. 7. THE argument of the petitioner is misconceived as he could derive no advantage from the fact that the property may have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and between the owner of the property and the State, the former may have had his rights extinguished in pursuance of acquisition proceedings. 7. THE argument of the petitioner is misconceived as he could derive no advantage from the fact that the property may have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and between the owner of the property and the State, the former may have had his rights extinguished in pursuance of acquisition proceedings. While the right of the owner of the premises might have been extinguished under acquisition proceedings no stranger or trespasser acquired better rights than the owner of the property. 8. THE petitioner walked into the premises stealthily, or was invited by the tenant, his father-in-law, illegally and without the landlord's permission. While the dispute between the landlord and the tenant (petitioner's father-in-law) was pending before the courts below, rent was being deposited under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This rent was deposited by the petitioner's father-in-law as a tenant. While depositing the rent in the court under Section 30 aforesaid in 1980 the petitioner's father-in-law has accepted that the respondent Nisar Ahmad was the owner and the landlord. THE deposit made by the petitioner's father-in-law as a tenant was acquiescing to the position that rent was payable and the person who was making the deposit was the tenant. Petitioner can neither have a status better than the tenant and the question of overriding status of the landlord, the true owner, does not arise, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Notwithstanding that the property may have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it does not stand to reason that an unauthorised person would walk into the property and violate proprietary rights of the owner. The proprietary rights of an owner will be extinguished under the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law and that is a matter between the State and the owner of the property but this does not mean that a trespasser and a rank outsider can walk into properties as an intermeddler and claim rights better than the owner. 9. THERE is an age old rule that no other person has a better right to property as against all the world except the true owner and this was established in the case of Armory v. Delamirie, 93 English Report ER 664 followed in the case of Bridges v. Hawke-sworth, 21 LJQB 75: All England Reports 1843-1860 page 122. 10. 9. THERE is an age old rule that no other person has a better right to property as against all the world except the true owner and this was established in the case of Armory v. Delamirie, 93 English Report ER 664 followed in the case of Bridges v. Hawke-sworth, 21 LJQB 75: All England Reports 1843-1860 page 122. 10. THE true owner is the landlord Nisar Ahmad and his status will remain as such and the consequence of any acquisition proceedings is a matter between him and the State. THE tenant was Haji Abdul Gaffar and he could not improve his status except the one he had as a tenant in reference to the landlord which status was determined when the landlord secured release of the accommodation under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in accordance with law. THE petitioner is without any status in reference to the accommodation which he occupies after it was released to the landlord consequent upon the order that the tenant be evicted. THE tenant is petitioner's father-in-law. Petitioner has interfered with the fiduciary relationship, a tenant has with the landlord. THE petitioner's father-in-law, as a tenant, violated the sanctity of the fiduciary relationship with his landlord in inducting the petitioner, a rank trespasser, and attempting to jeopardise the decree of eviction in the hands of the landlord. THE petitioner would remain a trespasser as any right he had was in pursuance to the illegal licence granted by his father-in-law to reside in the accommodation. THE right of his father-in-law as a tenant having been extinguished petitioner has no better right than the tenant who invited him, and certainly cannot override the right of the own. The last submission of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner was that the record of the land acquisition proceedings sent to the court of the 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur by the Kanpur Development Authority was not scrutinised by the Court as it ought to have been. This argument cannot be permitted in these proceedings. The learned 8th Additional District Judge aforesaid has noticed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in reference to the land acquisition proceedings and has rightly repelled the contention in effect on the ground that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and a trespasser, and had no right to reside in the accommodation upon the eviction of the tenant. The learned 8th Additional District Judge aforesaid has noticed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in reference to the land acquisition proceedings and has rightly repelled the contention in effect on the ground that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and a trespasser, and had no right to reside in the accommodation upon the eviction of the tenant. 11. THUS, the petitioner is a person who is an unauthorised occupant and is in illegal occupation of the property and seeks equitable and discretionary relief of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for protection and warding off eviction. The petitioner resists the proceedings arising out of the jurisdiction under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. These proceedings were against the tenant, the petitioner's father-in-law. The petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. The true owner remained the landlord under the law and no other person can claim a better title to the property than the true owner. Under U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, seeking release of the accommodation is a matter personal to the landlord and the tenant and the petitioner has not been able to show any status on record other than being an unauthorised occupant. No error can be found in the judgments of the courts below regarding the status of the petitioner and the petitioner can have no protection from eviction along with the tenant. 12. THE writ petition is, thus dismissed.