JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhawan, J. - In the city of Mathura is an accommodation bearing No. 448 Balkhandi, the landlord of the premises sought release of the accommodation. There were various prospective allottees vying for the accommodation to be become statutory tenants. Ashok Kumar Goel the petitioner had already settled himself in this accommodation but could not show the origin of his occupancy either by tacit consent or by an allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer while considering the release application of the landlord remarked upon the occupation of Ashok Kumar Goel as being unauthorised who bad entered into the premises, in effect, an action which could be certified as house breaking. The premises were released to the landlord by an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 7th February 1987. 2. The aforesaid Ashok Kumar Goel sought a review of this order by an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 16 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. On being questioned by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to show the origin of occupancy, the aforesaid Ashok Kumar Goel was unsuccessful and on more than one occasion the Rent Control and Eviction Officer certified that the petitioner had entered the premises unauthorisedly by breaking the locks of the accommodation. The contention of the petitioner is that he had occupied the accommodation as a tenant, was not accepted. Firstly the landlord had not accepted the petitioner as a tenant at any stage and secondly the petitioner could not prove that there existed the contract of tenancy. The petitioner attempted to claim authorised occupation under Section 14 of the Act but was unsuccessful and that argument was repelled also. 3. Having been certified as an unauthorised occupant and having entered the premises by an action of house breaking the petitioner moved the District Judge in revision with the grievance that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the premises to the landlord was illegal. The learned District Judge, Mathura declined to interfere in the revision filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is before this Court to impugn the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by which the premises were released to the landlord and subsequently the order of the District Judge, Mathura by which he declined to interfere in the revision of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is before this Court to impugn the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by which the premises were released to the landlord and subsequently the order of the District Judge, Mathura by which he declined to interfere in the revision of the petitioner. Upon facts which are on record the petitioner, in fact, is a trespasser. He has not been able to satisfy any of the authorities that he entered the accommodation validly and bona fide so as to give the benefit of an authorised occupant. Equity is against the petitioner and he cannot invoke law in his favour. None of the orders which have been impugned can be assailed by a petition under Article 226 of the constitution. 4. After this order had been dictated learned Counsel for the petitioner Sought an indulgence of the Court on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the Court be pleased to consider a request of granting reasonable time to vacate the accommodation as the petitioner apprehends forcible eviction in pursuance of form D which has already been issued. The court has considered this request and since the petitioner acquiesces to the impugned orders, this Court hereby grants the petitioner five weeks time to vacate the accommodation and deliver possession of it without let or hindrance to the landlord. 5. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 2nd April 1987 that the petitioner entered the premises unauthorisedly by breaking open the locks of 20th January 1985 is affirmed. For this use and occupation, the petitioner will pay damages to the owner of the premises which will be determined by the District Magistrate within one week of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon rent being determined by the District Magistrate, as so ordered, the petitioner would pay to the landlord or make deposit before the District Magistrate in the next seven days, failing which the indulgence granted to remain in accommodation for five weeks shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner will be liable to be evicted from the premises, if possible by force. As the respondent is not present at the Bar here, the Registrar of this Court will despatch a copy of this order to the Court of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, in Case No. 126 of 1987: Vishwanath v. Mahadev Prasad, within three days from today and the despatch number and the postal receipt will be set on record of the order sheet indicating that it has been done. 6. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.