JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute relates to house no. 4/30/3, situate at Mohalla Dodhpur, Aligarh. This is popularly known as 'Peeli Kothi'. This Peeli Kothi and another main building is popularly known as 'Sir Syed House'. They are within one compound. They originally belonged to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, the founder of the Aligarh Muslim University. After the heirs of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan migrated to Pakistan, the said property was declared as evacuee property and the said property vested in the custodian by virtue of an order dated 15th July, 1955. Since it belonged to the founder of the University, the University approached the Central Government for its transfer in favour of the Aligarh Muslim University as the University was taken to have the same for solmen purpose of establishing ' Founder Memorial '. The Central Government acceded to this request and also provided funds for its purchase by the University. In the year 1960, a public auction was held and the bid of the University was accepted. A sale certificate was issued consequently, on 31st October 1960 and in consequence thereof, the conveyance deed dated 22nd September, 1971 was prepared and was registered on 14th January, 1972. The disputed property was temporarily given to Syed Zafaryab Hussain Zaidi as he was on deputation as accounts officer in the University. He was only permitted to occupy the accommodation during the term of his service in the University. He was living in this accommodation merely as a licensee and not as a tenant. When Mr. Zaidi vacated the accommodation, the University took possession of the same. 2. The petitioner previously was an employee of the University and the allotment committee of the University, on his request, by virtue of his being a University employee, allotted another accommodation to him for his occupation as an University employee during the term of his service. The accommodation which was allotted to him, was a portion ' C ' of a kothi known as ' Safdar Manzil After the services of the petitioner were terminated, he was required to vacate the accommodation. He did not do so and, consequently, a suit was filed against him and he was evicted in pursuance of the decree passed by the court below. He did not do so and, consequently, a suit was filed against him and he was evicted in pursuance of the decree passed by the court below. The petitioner without disclosing this fact that he has been evicted from the Safdar Manzil as his services were ceased with the University applied for allotment of the accommodation in dispute. The allotment order was passed on 6th November, 1970. On 23rd November, 1970 when the University came to know of the same, it filed objections to the effect that the accommodation could not be allotted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the allotment order was obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud. Consequently, the operation of the allotment order was stayed on 23-11- 1970, but before the order was stayed, the petitioner, on 21-11-1970 broke open the locks of the accommodation and took possession of the same. The objections of the University were initially dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Against the said order, the University filed an appeal in the court of the District Judge, Aligarh. The District Judge, Aligarh allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for disposal of the application of the University in accordance with law. This order was passed on 13th November 1973. After remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer set aside the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner dated 6-11-1970 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and mis-representation. This order was passed on 4th July, 1979. A revision was filed against the said order under section 18 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said revision was dismissed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 11-12-1980 upholding that the order was obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud and misrepresentation and also upholding that in fact, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction at all to make an allotment in respect of the premises in suit. The petitioner has now challenged both the orders dated 4th July 1979 aswell as the order dated 11th December, 1980 by means of the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner has now challenged both the orders dated 4th July 1979 aswell as the order dated 11th December, 1980 by means of the present writ petition. 3. In my opinion, the sole question to be determined is whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on the date when the allotment order was passed, had the jurisdiction to pass the same or not. If he had the jurisdiction then only the other questions arise, otherwise the allotment order would be void as having been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction to do so. 4. In Manohar Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bareilly, AIR 19S9 Alld. 388 Hon'ble J. K. Tandon, as he then was, after examining the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, aswell as the rules framed thereunder, held that by the mere auction of the property, the sale does not become complete. It is only when the sale certificate is issued that the sale becomes final. It is the issue of this document by the managing officer which puts final seal to the transaction and results in the sale of the property to the auction purchaser. Until this is done, the property continues to be evacuee property and whatever rights the auction purchaser may have, he cannot claim to be its owner. In M/s. Bombay Sale and Chemical Industry v. L. J. Johnson, AIR 1958 SC 289 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider as to what is the effect of auction held under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, it held as follows : "It is clear from the rules and the conditions of sale set out above that the declaration that a person was the highest bidder at the auction does not amount to a complete sale and transfer of the property to him. The fact that the bid has to be approved by the Settlement Commissioner shows that till such approval which the Commissioner is not bound to give, the auction purchaser has no right at all. The fact that the bid has to be approved by the Settlement Commissioner shows that till such approval which the Commissioner is not bound to give, the auction purchaser has no right at all. It would further appear that even the approval of the bid by the Settlement Commissioner does not amount to a transfer of property for the purchaser has yet to pay the balance of the purchase money and the rules provide that if he fails to do that he shall not have any claim to the property. The correct position is that on the approval of the bid by the Settlement Commissioner, a binding contract for the sale of the property to the auction- purchaser comes into existence. Then the provisions as to the sale certificate would indicate that only upon the issue of it a transfer of property takes place." From these authorities, it is clear that the mere auction in favour of the University did not confer title on the University and the property continued to remain with the Custodian. 5. The Central Government framed the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 on 21st May, 1955. Chapter XIV of these Rules prescribe the procedure for the sale of the property in the compensation pool. Sub-rule 15 of the said rules provides as follows : "That when the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the managing officer shall issue to him a sale certificate in the form specified in the appendix to the rules and a certified copy of the certificate shall be sent by the managing officer to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property is situate." In view of these rules, the sale certificate in the instant case, since it was immovable property, required registration. The conveyance deed was registered on 14th January, 1972 and as such, the sale became complete on that date. In the circumstances, it is clear that on 6th November 1960, though there was a public auction in favour of the University, but the University became its owner only on 14th January, 1972. 6. Section 4 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, provides as to what other laws will have effect on the Act. It is quoted below : 4. 6. Section 4 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, provides as to what other laws will have effect on the Act. It is quoted below : 4. "Act to override other laws (1) The provisions of this Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing in any other law controlling the rents of, or evictions from any property shall apply, or be deemed ever to have applied, to evacuee property." Sub-clause (2) of the above section specifically provides that nothing in any other law controlling the rents of, or evictions from, any property shall apply or be deemed ever to have applied to evacuee property. On 6th November, 1970 the property continued to be an evacuee property. It did not vest in the University and as such, in view of the provisions of SECTION 4 (2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the provisions of U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 did not apply and as such, clearly the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction at all to pass any allotment order in respect of the said property. The effect of section 4 has also been considered in the case of Manobar Lal (supra), wherein, Hon'ble J. K. Tandon, J. held as follows :- "It is not disputed that the custodian has the power to grant leases also of evacuee property. Thus in view of Sec. 4 of that Act and the powers of the Custodian contained in Sec. 10 the provisions of U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 do not apply to evacuee property. The Rent controller, who derives his power under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, cannot for the same reason deal with evacuee property under the provisions of that Act." In view of the above, it is clear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction at all to deal with the evacuee property. The property in dispute was an evacuee property on the date when the order of allotment was passed. As such, the allotment order is clearly void and without jurisdiction. The property in dispute was an evacuee property on the date when the order of allotment was passed. As such, the allotment order is clearly void and without jurisdiction. Now the question arises as to whether any allotment order could at all be passed in respect of the property in dispute under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Section 20 (1) (b) of the Act provides as follows : "20 (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to : (b) any building belonging to or vested in a recognised educational institution, the whole of the income from which is utilised for the purposes of such institution." The word 'recognised educational institution' has been defined in section 3, sub-clause (q) of the Act, which is as follows :- "3 (q) "recognised educational institution" means "any University established by law in India." On reading of section 20 (1) (b) along with section 3 (q) of the Act, it is clear that any building belonging to any University established by law in India is exempt from the provisions of the Act. Aligarh Muslim University is the University established under the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. In view of the above sections, the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 will not apply to the properties belonging to the University. The sale deed in respect of the property in dispute was registered by the Custodian in favour of the University on 14th January, 1972, as such, the property clearly belongs to the University. Since the property in dispute belongs to the University, consequently, the Act does not apply and no allotment order can be passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under the Act in respect of this property. It is an absolute discretion of the University to permit anybody to use the property in any manner it likes. In this connection, it has been vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the courts below, a concession was given on behalf of the University that the residential accommodation owned by the University can be a subject matter of allotment by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This concession was given on 11th December, 1980. In this connection, it has been vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the courts below, a concession was given on behalf of the University that the residential accommodation owned by the University can be a subject matter of allotment by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. This concession was given on 11th December, 1980. At that time, it was not so clear and was debatable as to whether the property belonging to the Aligarh Muslim University would be excluded by the provisions of the Act, but a clear amendment was brought about by the Amending Act no. XVII of 1985 and it was made crystal clear that the recognised educational institution would be any University established by law in India. In the circumstances, the said concession no longer holds good. The property in dispute cannot be a subject matter of allotment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that once the allotment order was passed and the said allotment order having been implemented, it cannot, now be revoked. This argument, in my opinion, is wholly misconceived. If the Rent Control and Eviction Officer who passed the allotment order did not have the jurisdiction to the pass the same, the said allotment order would be void in the eye of law, and consequently, by the mere fact that by virtue of the allotment order the petitioner had taken forcible possession of the property, it cannot be said that the said allotment order could not be revoked. In the instant case, further there is a categorical finding of fact by both the courts below that the allotment order has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. In this view of the matter also, the allotment order obtained by fraud and misrepresentation can always be revoked. 8. It has been next contended that the University in its own objections filed against the allotment order on 23rd November, 1970, had stated that it is the owner of the property in question and as such, it is not open to it to say that it is not the owner thereof on the date when the allotment order was passed. IT is not disputed that on the date when the allotment order was passed, the evacuee property was auctioned in favour of the University. In the circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the statement made by the University. IT is not disputed that on the date when the allotment order was passed, the evacuee property was auctioned in favour of the University. In the circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the statement made by the University. The question as to what rights the auction would give to the University is a matter of law and as such, the University cannot be debarred in saying that the Pent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to allot the property in dispute, as the title of the property in dispute did not, in effect, pass in view of the displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. It has also been contended that the sale deed in respect of the property in dispute having been registered on 14th January, 1972 it would relate back to 31st October, 1960, when the sale certificate was issued in favour of the University and as such, on the date when the allotment order was passed, the University would be the owner of the said property. By the legal fiction which has been created by section 47 of the registration Act, the sale would relate back to 31st October, 1960, but by this fiction, power cannot be conferred on an authority under the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, if the said authority had no jurisdiction to pass any allotment order on that date. On the date when the allotment order was passed, there was no registration of the property in favour of the University and as such, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the same. The petitioner cannot taken the benefit of the legal fiction under section 47 of the Registration Act to validate an order passed wholly without jurisdiction. 9. Both the authorities below have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the allotment order has been obtained by the petitioner by fraud and misrepresentation. The property is not the subject matter of allotment at all. It is University property. The petitioner is not in the employment of the University, in the circumstances, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order dated 3-3-81 is, hereby vacated. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.