Judgment : N L. Ganguly, J. 1. THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and Order dated 20-10-1992, passed by the then Addl. District Magistrate (supply), Meerut, exercising powers of the delegated authority under Act No. 13 of 1972 and the revisional order dated 27th August, 1993, pissed by V Addl. District Judge, Meerut. 2. THE accommodation in question is a shop-room No 145, Mohalla Purwa Abdul Wali, Meerut. THE shop room in question is said to be occupied by one Mohd. Ilyas with effect from 30-7-1982 without an allotment order. THE occupation of the shop-room was said to be unauthorised occupation and the petitioner was liable to ejectment. THE opposite-party- plaintiff stated to have purchased the property in question and he wanted to start business on the ground floor and the construction on the 1st floor for his residence. THE property was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 1,55,000/-. THE landlord stated that his family consisted of 9 members including his wife, mother, two sons and four daughters. Besides this eight sisters of the landlord, who are married and they often come along with their husbands and stay with the landlord and his mother. THE landlord opposite-party pleaded that the shop and residential part of house in question is needed for his personal use and occupation and his need is genuine and bonafide. The Delegated Authority under the Act called for a report of the Inspector, Rent Control, about the factual position about the occupation of the petitioner. On the report of the Inspector, Rent Control and other material evidence, the District Magistrate exercising the powers as the Prescribed Authority under the Act declared vacancy of the accommodation in question on the ground that the petitioner was occupying the premises in question without any valid allotment order. 3. THE parties filed evidence in the case. THE petitioner submitted that he is carrying on business in the accommodation since 1-8-1982 after Obtaining a lease deed in his favour after paying Rs. 23,000/-. THE petitioner stated to be carrying on business in the shop previously -run by erstwhile owner of the shop Mohd. Ilyas. 4. THE authorities below recorded finding that the petitioner was occupying the premises since 1-8-1982, i.e. much after 5-7-1976 without any allotment order in his favour or any consent of the landlord prior to 5-7-1976. 23,000/-. THE petitioner stated to be carrying on business in the shop previously -run by erstwhile owner of the shop Mohd. Ilyas. 4. THE authorities below recorded finding that the petitioner was occupying the premises since 1-8-1982, i.e. much after 5-7-1976 without any allotment order in his favour or any consent of the landlord prior to 5-7-1976. Thus, the position of the petitioner was held to be ho better than an unauthorised occupant of the accommodation in question. The landlord raised the preliminary objection before the revisional court that the revision at the instance of the unauthorised occupant of the shop in question, whose position is no better than that of our prospective allottee could not legally challenge the order of release passed in favour of the landlord. The court below quoted the relevant passage of the judgment of our Court Jagjit Singh v. District Judge Dehradun, 1990 (1) ARC 517, and quoted as under : "The scheme of the Act is simply clear that no occupation of a building is permitted except in pursuance of an allotment order. Admittedly in the present case, there is no allotment order in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he came in occupation of the disputed accommodation with the consent of the landlord who had been accepting rent from him. This contract of tenancy may be binding between the landlord and the petitioner, but it is not binding on the authorities under the Act and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is fully competent to adjudicate and declare vacancy if he finds that a person is in occupation of a building without a valid allotment order in his favour. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer having found that there is no allotment order in favour of the petitioner, rightly held that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and declared the vacancy. In case a tenant is allowed to occupy a building merely with the consent of the landlord, these provisions of Sections 11, 13 15 and 31 of the Act will be defeated which Clearly prohibit the occupation of the building except in pursuance of an allotment order. In case a tenant is allowed to occupy a building merely with the consent of the landlord, these provisions of Sections 11, 13 15 and 31 of the Act will be defeated which Clearly prohibit the occupation of the building except in pursuance of an allotment order. Consequently the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was fully competent to examine the status of the petitioner in occupation of the building and having found that the petitioner was in occupation of the disputed premises without any allotment order in his favour rightly held that the petitioner's status was nothing more than an unauthorised occupant and declared the vacancy." 5. THE court below has relied a decision, Smt. Pratima Chatterji v. Special Judge, Kanpur, 1992 (2) ARC 194, and observed that the person to whom the building was let out, cannot be allowed to dispose of its relationship as tenant with the landlord. 6. THE District Judge also relied the decision in Talib Husain v. I.A.DJ., Nainital, 1986 (1) ARC 1 and quoted as under : "THE right of prospective allottee is not an absolute right. It is contingent upon, firstly the accommodation being vacant and secondly, the building being available for allotment. Rule 13 (4) of the Rules, framed under the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, as it stands in present, reinforces this conclusion. It provides that on allotment in respect of a building covered by an application under Section 16 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, shall be made unless such application is rejected. THE right of prospective allottee to, have his application for allotment considered, hence arises only, after the rejection of the landlord's application under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, for release of accommodation. THE prospective allottee comes into picture only after the disposal of the landlord's application for release under Section 16 (1) (b) and only if the same is rejected." Thus after considering the legal aspect raised by the petitioner before the Court below it was observed that the prospective allottee has also no right or interest in the property or claim against the landlord so as to be entitled in the disposal of the release application on general principles of doctrine of audi alteram parter. I have heard Sri S. Banerji and Sri Malik Sayeed Uddin, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate along with Sri R. B. D. Mishra for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record carefully. 7. IN my considered, opinion the judgments of the Courts below are perfectly legal and just in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner is not a fit person who himself occupied the accommodation in question without allotment order and circumvented provisions of the Act, illegally continued in the premises in question. He has rightly been held to be unauthorised occupant and the shop question was correctly held to be vacant in eye of law open for release of allotment. The courts below correctly found that the need of the opposite-party is bonafide and genuine and the accommodation was correctly and legally released in his favour. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are pure questions of fact which has not been shown to be in any manner perverse or without evidence. Such a finding cannot be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution, thus, I am of the view that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner for reasons already stated above. The writ petition is thus dismissed summarily. 8. AFTER this order, was pronounced the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that actually the petitioner is carrying on business in the shop in question, some time may be granted to him .to enable him to search out and shift the goods of his business from the accommodation in question. The request of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be reasonable and the ends of justice and I consider that three months time be allowed to him to enable him to search out another accommodation and shift his goods from, the shop in question. The petitioner admitted the rate of rent of the accommodation in question as Rs. 425/- per month. The petitioner admitted the rate of rent of the accommodation in question as Rs. 425/- per month. The petitioner's learned counsel undertakes that in ten days from today the petitioner shall submit a written undertaking before the Prescribed Authority under the Act that he shall vacate the premises in question and actually deliver the vacant possession of the accommodation in question to opposite party No. 3 just on expiry of three months from today. He shall also deposit the three months mesne profit or damages at the rate of Rs. 425/- per month before the Prescribed Authority under the Act within one month from today. The amounts so deposited shall be paid to the opposite party no. 3. In case no undertaking is submitted before the Prescribed Authority under the Act within the stipulated period and the amount as directed to be deposited is also not deposited within the stipulated period, the order passed giving three months time shall stand automatically vacated. Any claim of damages for use and occupation for the period other than stated in this order shall not be affected by this judgment and the opposite party shall have all legal rights to collect the same, if any, from the petitioner. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. 9. A copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel, for the parties within three days on payment of usual charges. Petition dismissed.