JUDGMENT : G.P. Mathur, J. This petition at the instance of the landlord has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15-12-1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by which his release application has been dismissed Parties have exchanged affidavits and, therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. Landlord-Petitioners filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the premises bearing no A/12 Shanti Nagar, Cant. Kanpur, which is in occupation of Smt Raj Kumari Singh, Respondent No. 2, on the ground that the same was required for their personal need. The release application was allowed and the premises were released in favour of the landlords of the Prescribed Authority by judgment and order dated 8-7-1988. The tenant-Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. In the appeal the tenant moved an application for amendment of her written statement wherein a new plea was taken that the said building was let out to her by the landlords without any allotment order and as such she could not be deemed to be a tenant and the release application filed by the landlords u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable The learned Additional District Judge accepted the plea raised by the tenant and held that as she was let out the building without any allotment order the proper remedy for the landlords was to file an application u/s 16(1)(b) of the Act and the release application u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable. 3. Shri S.P. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has submitted that even if the building was let out to Respondent No. 2 Without any allotment order the contract of tenancy was binding upon her and it was not open to her to contend that she was not a tenant of the building in proceedings for release u/s 21(1) of the Act and the view to the contrary taken by the learned Add). District Judge was patently erroneous in law Shri Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, has on the other hand contended that as the building was let out without any allotment order, in law, it would be deemed to be vacant and the application u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act was not maintainable and the landlord could only approach the District Magistrate u/s 16(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Section 13 of the Act provides that where a landlord or a tenant ceased to occupy a building no person shall occupy it in any capacity otherwise than under an order of allotment and if a person so purports to occupy it he shall be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such building. Section 16 provides that the District Magistrate may by order require the landlord to let any building which has fallen vacant to any person specified in the order. Therefore' if a landlord lets out his building to any person without any allotment order the possession of such a person would be unauthorised and the contract entered into between the landlord and the tenant would not be binding upon the authorities. But the contract between the landlord and the tenant would be valid between them inter se and would be binding upon them. In Udhoo Dass Vs. Prem Prakash and Another, AIR 1964 All 1 while considering the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. A Full Bench of our court has held as follows: Hence a contract of tenancy of an accommodation governed by the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary)) Control of Rent and Eviction Act entered into by a landlord with a person on payment of rent by the latter for the purpose of carrying on business in the accommodation, in violation of a general or a special order issued by the District Magistrate concerned u/s 7(2) of the Act is not void u/s 10 read with Section 27 of the Contract Act. The same question again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Aggarwal and Another Vs. The same question again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Aggarwal and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1974) 2 SCC 472 , where it was held as follows: A lease made in violation of the provisions of Section 7 (2) would be valid between the parties and would create the relationship of landlord and tenant between them although it might not bind the authorities concerned. Therefore, the lessee who had been paying the rent to the lessors was a tenant and permission u/s 3 to file a suit for eviction was necessary. In Nanak Ram v. Kudal Rai AIR 1968 SC 1194, while considering the question as to whether a lease concluded between a landlord and a tenant in contravention of Clause 22 of Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order 1949, the Supreme Court observed as follows: If the lease is not void it is not open to either party to avoid the lease on the ground that it is inconsistent with Clause 22. The parties would be bound, as between them, to observe the conditions of the lease, and it cannot be assailed by either party in a proceeding between them. In Smt. Ram Sakhi Dwivedi v. Rama Kant Gupta 1988 (2) ARC 164, this Court was called upon to consider the question as to whether a suit for recovery of possession filed by a landlord after determination of tenancy was maintainable if the tenant had been inducted as such without any allotment order in contravention of law. The piea taken by the tenant was that he was an unauthorised occupant and the contract of tenancy, if any, was void. The piea taken by the tenant was that he was an unauthorised occupant and the contract of tenancy, if any, was void. After considering the law on the subject in detail Hon'ble A.P. Misra J. held as follows: In view of the clear enunciation of law on this point there is no room for doubt that any lease or agreement would not be void merely because it is illegal or in contravention of the Act unless it can be shown that it is an obstruction in the implementation of the public policy laid down under the said Act Even in the present case, nothing has been shown as to the Act which declares such transaction to be void The only argument on behalf of the Defendant is the difference in the language of old Act of 1947 and the 1972 Act that now u/s 13 the position of such person is treated to be unauthorised while there was no such provision under the old Act. May be that the position remained that if such possession is unauthorised, but it does not make the contract of tenancy between the landlord and tenant before the allotment order by the authorities to be illegal. It only becomes void the moment the authorities wake, pass any order to implement the public policy and the moment it is done such a person is unauthorised for the purpose of the Act it would be deemed to be vacant. Thus, I do not find any obstruction by the said contract, which fetters the power of the authority for implementing the public policy. Similar view was taken in Prakash Chandra v. Sardar Narendra Singh 1989 (1) ARC 132, wherein it was held that even if the tenancy was created against the provisions of law but as there was relationship of landlord and tenant the contract of tenancy would be binding between the parties and the suit for eviction was not barred. 5. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners are owner-landlord of the premises in dispute Respondent no 2 was inducted in the premises as tenant by the Petitioners and she has been paying rent to the Petitioners since 1978 Prior to the filing of the amendment application before, the appellate authority Respondent No. 2 never asserted herself to be unauthorised occupant. In the written statement filed by her before the Prescribed Authority she admitted that the Petitioners are the landlords and she is the tenant of the premises in dispute. There is also no dispute that Respondent No. 2 has throughout been paying rent to the Petitioners. In this view of the matter the contract of tenancy between the landlords and Respondent No. 2 is binding inter se and it is not open to her to contend that she is not the tenant of the building but is an unauthorised occupant thereof It is a different matter that as the building was let out without any allotment order her position as a tenant may not be accepted by the rent control authorities but so far as Respondent No. 2 is concerned she cannot contend that she is not the tenant of the building. In this view of the matter the requirements of Section 21 of the Act are fully satisfied and the application for release filed by the landlord against Respondent No. 2 was maintainable. The learned Additional District Judge has, therefore, erred in holding that the release application was not maintainable and in rejecting the same on the said ground. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge therefore suffers from manifest error of law and is liable to be set aside. Since the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 before the learned Addl. District Judge was disposed of only on the legal ground that the release application was not maintainable and the case was not examined on merits the matter has to be remanded for rehearing of appeal on merits. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 15-12-1989 passed by the Addl, District Judge (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is quashed. The appeal will now be heard on merits by the District Judge or some other Addl. District Judge, other than Shri O.N. Khandelwal, to whom it may be assigned. The case is fairly old and, therefore, I direct that the appellate authority shall try to dispose of the appeal expeditiously preferably within four months of the presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. The Petitioners will be entitled to their costs.