JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition dismissed by him in limine. The writ petition was filed seeking to obtain a writ quashing the order of the District Magistrate, Lucknow dated 12-4-1958 by which he had requisitioned under Sec. 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 a house no. 97 situate at Lokmanganj, Lucknow. This house was allotted to and was occupied by Bihari Lal Srivastava. He had built his own house and he was likely to shift to that building and possibly he had shifted. The petitioner was living with Bihari Lal according to his contention as a guest or as a relation. When Bihari Lal practically completed his house, the petitioner moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot the premises in dispute in his favour but no allotment was made. On the contrary on 12-4-58 a notice was served by the District Magistrate on Bihari Lal Srivastava, the allottee of the accommodation, that the premises had been requisitioned under Sec. 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 for public purpose. By the same notice Bihari Lal Srivastava was directed to give possession of the premises to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow. The contention of the petitioner is that though Bihari Lal Srivastava was served with a notice but no such notice was given to him although he was an 'occupier' of the premises. 2. The petitioner further contended that lie was assured by the District Magistrate that an alternative accommodation will be provided to him but no such accommodation has been provided and therefore, he cannot be ejected under Sec. 3 of the Act till an alternative accommodation is provided to him. 3. The learned single Judge was of opinion that the petitioner was not an 'occupier' and had no right to remain in the premises and consequently he dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by that decision this appeal was filed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and we are of opinion that the petitioner is not an 'occupier' of the premises. He was staying in the house, according to his own contention, as a guest of Bihari Lal Srivastava. That would not give him any right to occupy the house. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and we are of opinion that the petitioner is not an 'occupier' of the premises. He was staying in the house, according to his own contention, as a guest of Bihari Lal Srivastava. That would not give him any right to occupy the house. It was open to Bihari Lal Srivastava at any time to ask him to vacate the premises and therefore the occupation of the applicant was only with leave and licence of Bihari Lal and that did not create any such right in the petitioner as to make him an `occupier' within the definition of the word under the U. P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947. 5. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the requisition by the District Magistrate was not for a public purpose. We do not wish to go into that question because unless the petitioner has a locus standi to maintain the petition, he cannot challenge the validity of the District Magistrate's order. The petitioner has no locus standi as he was not an 'occupier.' The writ petition was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge. 6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 7. Since the appeal has been dismissed the stay order dated 17-10-1958 is also discharged.