JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Krishna Vikram Shah, a Nepalese citizen settled peranently in Nepal, owns. 1 Old Cannaught Place, Dehradun a big building having several tenaments. His application for release under Act 3 of 1947 against one Gopi Chand was allowed on 5th July, 1972, ten days before repeal of the Act and enforcement of Act 22 of 1972. What happened there after is not clear but on 2nd April, 1973 the portion appears to have been allotted to one Ajay Rattan. On coming to know of it Sri Shah challenged the order in appeal which was compromised on 30th March, 1974 permitting Ajai Rattan to remain in possession till 31st December. It was also agreed that on failure to deliver vacant possession on or before this date Sri Shah shall be entitled to get possession with help of Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The application was signed on behalf of Sri Shah by opposite party No. 3 as his attorney. It is again not very clear as to whether Ajai Rattan vacated in December, 1974 or continued to remain in possession till 1976 as claimed by petitioner or till 1980 as claimed by opposite party nor it is clear if Sri Shah occupied the premises. It either remained vacant or was occupied by one or the other person either as allottee or unauthorised occupant depending on resources. In 1981 an attempt was made by one Mrs. Veena Vermani as well to get the premises allotted but on inspection it was found that the premises were not vacant. In 1982 an, application was moved on 10th June, before Rent Control and Eviction Officer on behalf of landlord claiming that allotment in favour of Ajai Rattan was set aside in appeal and he was directed to handover possession. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to get vacant possession over it. Consequently the authorities may get possession on the premises restored to the landlord in the same condition in which it was at the time of allotment to Ajai Rattan. The application does not disclose as to whether Ajai Rattan continued in possession or not nor is there anything to indicate as to who was in actual physical possession of the house indispute. On this application the Inspector appears to have visited the spot and he found that petitioner was residing in it as an unauthorised occupant. The application does not disclose as to whether Ajai Rattan continued in possession or not nor is there anything to indicate as to who was in actual physical possession of the house indispute. On this application the Inspector appears to have visited the spot and he found that petitioner was residing in it as an unauthorised occupant. Although it is not clear whether she was given any notice or not but it appears she did appear, contest the proceedings, filed affidavit of other tenants in support of her claim that she was inducted as tenant by the landlord. The Prescribed authority after considering report of the Inspector and the claim of the parties held that the claim of petitioner that she was residing in the house indispute since prior to 1st July, 1976 was incorrect. It was not supported by any evidence on record and as petitioner was an unauthorised occupant the landlord was entitled to get possession over it. In pursuance of this order dated 11th October, 1982 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer the District Magistrate issued an order under sub-section (4) of sub- section 16 of the Act directing petitioner to vacate the said building and deliver vacant possession to opposite party No. 3 the attorney of Sri Shah. Both these orders were challenged in revision. The revising authority held that although petitioner claimed to have been in possession since 1st July, 1976 with consent of landlord on a rent of Rs. 50/- per month but she could not produce any rent receipt nor any evidence in support of her claim. It was held by him that documents filed by her related to 1981 and it was not possible to believe that despite release order the landlord permitted petitioner to live in the disputed premises as his tenant. He further did not find any merit in claim of petitioner that no rent receipt was issued to her since 1976. 2. Alongwith the writ petition three affidavits of other tenants in occupation of other portions of the house indispute has been filed. These affidavits were on record of the Prescribed authority. In all these affidavits which are more or less identical it has been stated that petitioner was tenant on behalf of opposite party since July, 1976 on rent of Rs. 50/- per month. These affidavits were on record of the Prescribed authority. In all these affidavits which are more or less identical it has been stated that petitioner was tenant on behalf of opposite party since July, 1976 on rent of Rs. 50/- per month. It is also stated in those affidavits that the landlord despite her request assured her that it was not necessary to get the premises allotted and he did not issue any receipt to her. On strength of these affidavits it is urged that both the Prescribed authority and revising authority committed an error apparent on the face of record. It is not controverted by opposite party that these affidavits were on record. There can thus be no doubt that the observations of revising authority that there was no evidence on record is not correct. What evidentiary value these affidavits had and whether they could have been accepted as establishing case of petitioner is another matter but they should certainly have been examined by the revising authority. To this extent the learned counsel for petitioner appears to be justified in his submission. 3. But that alone does not entitle him to get a writ issued from this Court. These affidavits are vague. They do not disclose the date on which petitioner was permitted by opposite party No. 3 to occupy the premises, Statement that since date of occupation petitioner has been paying rent continuously is not suppoted by any material. It has been found that petitioner failed to produce any receipt. Her case that opposite party had assured her that no receipt was needed has not been believed. Infact it appears these affidavits were filed more with purpose of applicability of Section 14 of the Act. But even that could not be made out. A person claiming benefit of this sect on is required to establish that he was licencee or tenant and was in possession on the date immediately before commencement of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976. This act came into force on (15 July, 1972). In order to claim benefit of it the petitioner was required to prove that she was in possession on this date. But instead of mentioning the date the affidavits state that she was in possession since July, 1976. This was not sufficient in law. This act came into force on (15 July, 1972). In order to claim benefit of it the petitioner was required to prove that she was in possession on this date. But instead of mentioning the date the affidavits state that she was in possession since July, 1976. This was not sufficient in law. Argument of learned counsel for petitioner that the averment that she was in possession since July, 1976 with statement that tenancy was monthly established with help of General Clauses Act that petitioner shall be deemed to have come in possession since 1st July, 1976 cannot be accepted. To claim benefit, under section 14 petitioner should have come with specific case. Apart from it even assuming petitioner was in possession he should have been as licencee or tenant with consent of landlord. It having been found that she was unauthorised occupant a finding which has not been shown to suffer from any error of law the claim of petitioner for regularisation of tenancy cannot be accepted. 4. Basic argument advanced on behalf of petitioner was that release against Ajai Rattan having been allowed on 5th July, 1972 under section 7 of Act 3 of 1947 it could not be enforced under Act 13 of 1972 which came into force on 15th July, 1972. Reliance was placed on the saving clause and it was urged that this was not one of the cases contemplated in which proceedings could be taken under the amended Act. The argument does not appear to have any substance. Release order was passed in 1972 against Gopi Chand. In 1974 it was got allotted by Ajai Rattan. The allotment order was set aside in appeal and he agreed to hand over possession on or before 31st December, 1974. The application which was filed by petitioner for restoration of possession was not with reference to release order passed on 19th July, 1972 but with reference to compromise entered in 1974. To say, therefore, restoration was applied on basis of order passed in 1972 is not correct. 5. The application which was filed by petitioner for restoration of possession was not with reference to release order passed on 19th July, 1972 but with reference to compromise entered in 1974. To say, therefore, restoration was applied on basis of order passed in 1972 is not correct. 5. Even assuming that the order passed by the authorities suffers from some illegality or error the petitioner having been found to be an unauthorised occupant and she having failed to bring on record any material which could demonstrate that she was tenant, licence or a person who was occupying with the consent of landlord or in pursuance of any order passed by the authorities constituted under the Act, she cannot be granted any indulgence by this Court. No writ can be issued in favour of a person who chose to take law in her own hands. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that even an unauthorised occupant should be evicted by process of law and, therefore, the opposite party should be directed to take proceedings cannot be accepted in writ jurisdiction. It need not be repeated that a person who seeks equity must do equity. It does not lie in the mouth of petitioner first to enter in possession illegally in an unauthorised manner and then claim that she should be evicted in accordance with law. 6. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. The petitioner is granted time to vacate the premises in disputed on or before 31st December, 1983.