JUDGMENT J.C. Gupta, J.
1. Despite time having been granted, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.5.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, respondent No. 1 rejecting the petitioner's application for recalling the order dated 25.3.1998 whereby the disputed shop has been released in favour of the landlord, respondent No. 2 under Section 16 (1) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. The facts relevant for this writ petition may be abated in brief as follows. The dispute relates to shop No. 3/1048/3 Mohalla Ram Nagar Pathanpura district Saharanpur of which respondent No. 2 is admittedly the landlord. The petitioner carne into occupation of the said shop in May, 1981 undisputedly without any order of allotment in his favour. In the year 1987 one Mahaveer Prasad moved application for allotment on the ground that the shop in question was vacant as the same was in occupation of the petitioner without an order of allotment. By the order dated 6.12.1990, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared vacancy treating the petitioner to be in unauthorised occupation thereof. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5826 of 1991 and by an interim order of this Court operation of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declaring vacancy was stayed. The aforesaid wilt petition was. however, dismissed on 15.10.97 in non-prosecution by this Court. After the dismissal of the said petition, the landlord, respondent No. 2 made an application on 18.12.1997 for releasing the shop in question in his favour as according to him, the same was bona fide requirement by him for his son's need. The said application was allowed by respondent No. 1 by order dated 25.3.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for recalling the said order on the ground that he had not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing the said order. By the impugned order, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected the said application. It further appears that petitioner then filed revision against the release order and the same was also got dismissed in non-prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and since counter-affidavit has been exchanged this writ petition in peculiar circumstances of the case is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
5. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the shop in question without an order of allotment in his favour. Section 11 of the Act prohibits letting without allotment order. It says that no person shall let any building except in pursuance of an order of allotment issued under Section 16 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act then puts a restriction that no person shall occupy a vacant building in any capacity otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under Section 16 and if a person so purports to occupy it. he shall, without prejudice to the provision of Section 31 [which relates to the prosecution of the offender) be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such building, in the case of Nutun Kumar v. IInd Additional District Judge. Banda and others, 1993 (2) ARC 204, a Full Bench of this Court considered the various provisions of the Act and expressed the view that an agreement involving transaction of either letting by the landlord or occupation of any portion of any building except in pursuance of an order of allotment or release, being prohibited has to be treated to have been invalidated by the statute rendering it void and unenforceable in a Court of law and no remedies are open to either party to the agreement. It has also been held in the case of Km. Rajni Mishra and another v. Special Judge, Agra and others, 1998 (2) ARC 42, that in view of the Pull Bench decision aforesaid, the settled position of law is that after the enforcement of the Act, arty letting made in contravention of the provision of Sections 11 and 13 is illegal and void and the tenanted accommodation would be deemed to be vacant and open for allotment or release, as the case may be. In view of this settled law and on the undisputed facts the occupation of the petitioner in the shop in question was unauthorised inasmuch as he came to occupy the shop in question in the year 1981, that is, after the commencement of the Act without any order of allotment made in his favour. The shop under law could be let out only under an order of the District Magistrate made under Section 16 of the Act and not otherwise and therefore, the same was vacant by operation of law.
6. So far as the order of release made in favour of respondent No. 2 is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard before making of the said order. Since the status of the petitioner was that of an unauthortse occupant, he had no right of hearing in the proceedings relating to the release as it is also well-settled law that the question of consideration of bona fide need of the landlord is a matter entirely between the landlord and the District Magistrate and a prospective allottee or an unauthorise occupant has no focus standi in such matters and they have no right to object to the claim of the landlord for the release of the vacant building. In this connection, a reference may be made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Tafib Hassan and others v. 1st A. D. J., Nainital and others, 1986 (1) ARC 1 and on the case of Ram Kumar Maheshioari a. A.D.M. and others, 1993 (2) ARC 6. The Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Narayani Devi v. M. K. Tripathi and others, 1998 (1) ARC 153, has further held that revision against the final order of release does not lie at the instance of the sitting tenant who has been held to be in unauthorised occupation. The petitioner, being an unauthorised occupant cannot be permitted to seek a relief in writ Jurisdiction to which he is not entitled under law. It is also well-settled law that one who seeks relief from this Court in writ jurisdiction, he must satisfy the Court that he possesses an enforceable right in himself and infringement of which has caused injustice to him. One who does not have such a right, cannot be permitted to ask for any equitable relief in writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the present case no enforceable right vests in the petitioner as his status under the provisions of the Act is that of an unauthorised occupant. Further for claiming equitable relief the petitioner has to satisfy that his hand are clean. When the petitioner himself is quality of circumventing and violating the provision of the Act he cannot ask for any protection from this Court.
7. For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.