JUDGMENT J.C. Gupta, J.
1. Heard petitioner's counsel Shri Rajesh Tandon as well as learned counsel for the caveator respondents.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 12.5.1998 rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 [hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the review of the order dated 31.12.1997 whereby the accommodation In question was released in favour of the landlord-respondent.
3. It is not disputed before the Court that the petitioner is in occupation of the accommodation in question without an order of allotment in his favour. The petitioner himself participated in the proceedings relating to declaration of vacancy and filed his own affidavit admitting that he has been in occupation of the accommodation in question as tenant since 1991 and as the landlord happened to be his relation, he did not think it necessary to obtain any order of allotment. It is also not disputed that building in question is covered by the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. After the Full Bench decision of Nutun Kumar's case, 1993 Aft CJ 721, the settled position of law is that any contract of tenancy after the enforcement of the Act made against the provision of Section 11 is void and is not enforceable in law for any purpose. The mere fact that the petitioner was continuing in occupation of accommodation in question with the consent of the landlord would not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the R. C. and E. O. in treating the building as vacant. Under Section 13 of the Act. occupation of such an occupant is unauthorised and the building is deemed to be vacant for the purposes of allotment or release, as the case may be. The R. C. and E. O. after hearing the petitioner also by the order dated 26.12.1997 declared vacancy and subsequently by the order dated 31.12.1997 released the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent. One of the prospective allottees filed writ petition against the said order but the same was dismissed by this Court and in that writ petition, the petitioner was also impleaded as a party.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the R. C. and E. O. has wrongly observed In the impugned order that the judgment given by this Court In the writ petition aforesaid was also binding on the petitioner because the petitioner was not served with any notice of hearing and the writ petition was dismissed at the preliminary stage itself without issuing notice to the petitioner. Even assuming the said argument to be correct, on the undisputed and proved fact, a vacancy in law stood created because even according to the petitioner himself, he had come to occupy the building in question in the year 1991 and admittedly there is no order of allotment in his favour, consequently the building in question has become vacant under the deeming provisions of the Act. The review petition made by the petitioner was not maintainable as he had been held to be an unauthorised occupant. It would further appear from perusal of the review petition that the petitioner challenged only the order of release made in favour of the landlord on the ground that the landlord concealed the fact that he was having a number of properties. It is well-settled law that the question of release of a vacant building is a matter entirely between the R. C. and E. O. and the landlord. Neither a prospective allottee nor an unauthorised occupant has any right to object to the claim of the landlord in such matters. 1 have already expressed this view in the decision in Suraj Bhan Jain and another v, Ist Addl. District Judge, Agra and others, 1997 (2) ARC 592 and in the case of Smt. Kanto Devi v. District Judge and others, 1998 (2) ARC 64. The Supreme Court also in a recent decision of Narayani Devi V. M. K. Tripathi and others. 1998 (J) ARC 153. has observed that even a tenant who is held to he in unauthorised occupation has no right to challenge the order of release made in favour of the landlord.
5. In the backdrop of this legal position, the status of the petitioner as an unauthorised occupant cannot be doubted and thus he was not entitled to get the order of release made in favour of the landlord reviewed by moving an application under Section 16 (5) of the Act.
6. The writ petition, for the reasons stated above, is liable to be dismissed.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made a prayer to give the petitioner a reasonable time to vacate the premises in question. This prayer is seriously opposed by Shri Prakash Krishna, counsel for the caveator on the ground that the petitioner is having his own house in the same city to which he can shift without any hardship being caused to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said house belongs to his father and it may take some time for the petitioner to make his own alternative arrangement.
8. In the circumstances while dismissing this writ petition, the Court allows the petitioner time upto 31.12.1998 to vacate and handover possession of the disputed accommodation to the landlord by that date subject to his filing an undertaking on affidavit before the R. C. and E. O. within a period of three weeks from today to the effect that the petitioner shall not keep the accommodation in question in his occupation beyond 31.12.1998 and shall handover vacant possession of the same to the landlord before that date without inducting third person therein. In order to enable the petitioner to file required undertaking the operation of the impugned order of release shall remain suspended for a period of three weeks from today. In case, the undertaking is filed and respected the operation of the said order shall remain suspended till 31.12,1998. In the event of no undertaking, being filed as aforesaid, it shall be open for the landlord-respondent to get the order of release enforced forthwith according to the provisions of the Act and Rules.