JUDGMENT A.N. Seth. J. - The accommodation in dispute was allotted to Ram Sumeran Shukla by an order dated 4th July, 1972. He moved an application under section 7-A of U. P. Act 3rd of 1947 for eviction of he Sri Ram Chandra Gupta alleging that he was in illegal occupation of the accommodation. While the applications was pending, U. P. Act No. XLII of 1972 came into force Objections were filed on behalf of petitioner No. 2. the deity in whom the property vests. Another objection was filed by Smt. Annapurna Devi, one of the sarvarakars of the Deity. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelled the allotment order on the reasoning that since Smt. Annapurna Devi resided in the adjoining portion of the property and the allotment order was made without taking her consent it may cause breach of the peace. The allottee preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelling the allotment order. Be also allowed the application of Ram Sumeran Shukla for deliver of possession under section 71 of U. P. 3rd of 1947. 2. The case set up by petitioner No. 1 was that the premises had been let out to him in May, 1972, after it had been vacated by the then tenant and since he was in possession with the consent of the landlord his possession would be deemed to have been regularised. The allottee contested the claim that petitioner No. I was in occupation of the disputed accommodation as a tenant. It was as settled that actually his brother Ram Chandra Gupta was In an authorised occupation of the disputed accommodation, After a careful scrutiny of the material on record, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that it was Ram Chandra Gupta who was in possession of the accommodation in dispute at the relevant time and the case of occupation by Tulsi Ram Gupta could not be accepted. The finding of fact is based on relevant materials on record and has not been shown to be vitiated by any order. On this finding alone, the petitioner has no case. the proceeding initiated. by the allottee was for eviction of the unauthorised occupant. Since the case set up by petitioner no. The finding of fact is based on relevant materials on record and has not been shown to be vitiated by any order. On this finding alone, the petitioner has no case. the proceeding initiated. by the allottee was for eviction of the unauthorised occupant. Since the case set up by petitioner no. I has been rightly disbelieved, he is not entitled to any relief by this Court. 3. Admittedly the order of allotment was passed on 4th July, 1972 under the Old Act. The order of allotment was not challenged by the landlord. In view of Section 43(2) (k) that order became final. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to set aside that order on the reasoning that the enforcement of that order may led to breach of the peace. 4. No other point was pressed before me. 5. The petitioner has no merit and is dismissed. 6. The parties shall bear their own costs.