SURYA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 23/07/1990 passed by the Uppar Nagar Magistrate I, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1989 under S. 145, Cr. P. C. P. S. Colonolganj, Allahabad. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this criminal revision briefly stated are as under :- there is a lady named Km. Shobha Bos daughter of late N. N. Bos. She is a land lady of house No. 183 Colonolganj, Allahabad. She resides quite alone in the major portion of the said house. A small portion measuring 8 x 8 of the said house was in the tenancy of one A. N. David. A. N. David fell in arrears of rent. Consequently the land lady Km. Shobha Bos filed a Judge Small Cause Court Suit No. 85/85 Km. Shobha Bos v. A. N. David for recovery of rent and eviction of A. N. David from the said portion, which was used by him as a shop. That suit was decreed ex parte on 21-12-85. A. N. David moved an application which was registered and numbered as 9/85 for setting aside the ex parte decree. That application was, however, allowed on certain conditions vide order dated 4/05/1987. In pursuance of the order dated 4/05/1987 itself A. N. David deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 as arrears of rent in the Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad. During the pendency of the said application itself, A. N. David gave information on 1-12-86 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of the vacation of the premises in question by him. ( 3 ) CONSEQUENTLY the premises in dispute was declared vacant on 30-4-87. But he did not allegedly give information of the vacation of the disputed premises by him to the landlady Km. Shobha Bos. Subsequently she was allegedly unaware till 30/04/1987 of the premises in question having fallen vacant. No notice or summons was allegedly served on her through the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer about the vacation of the premises in suit or of the inspection of the same made by the Rent Control Inspector thereafter. ( 4 ) ONE Manoj Kumar Yadav resident of 91-A North Malaka, Allahabad, moved an application for allotment of the premises in dispute on the ground of the same having been vacated by A. N. David. ( 4 ) ONE Manoj Kumar Yadav resident of 91-A North Malaka, Allahabad, moved an application for allotment of the premises in dispute on the ground of the same having been vacated by A. N. David. On the basis of that application, an allotment order dated 10/12/1987 was made in favour of Manoj Kumar Yadav in respect of the premises in question at the monthly rent of Rs. 200. 00. Km. Shobha Bos however made an application under S. 16 (5) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on 30-4-88 against the allotment order. The allotment order dated 10/12/1987 was ultimately cancelled vide order dated 8/02/1990. ( 5 ) THE land-lady Km. Shobha Bos put the afore-mentioned ex parte decree into execution and consequently sought to evict A. N. David from the premises in question. Manoj Kumar Yadav moved an application before the executing court for not being dispossessed from the premises in question. That application, was however, ejected by the executing court. A Civil Revision No. 133 of 1990 was filed against the order rejecting that application. An application for ad-interim injunction/order was also simultaneously moved. That application was, however, rejected by the Ist Additional District Judge, Allahabad vide his order dated 31/03/1990. Against that order dated 31/03/1990, a, writ petition was filed in the Honble High Court. The Honble Court vide its order dated 18/07/1990 stayed the dispossession of Manoj Kumar Yadav from the premises in dispute during the pendency of the Civil Revision No. 133 of 1990. ( 6 ) IT is not out of place to mention that criminal proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. relating to the premises in question were started on the basis of the report submitted by the Station Officer, P. S. Colonolganj, Allahabad on 29-6-89. Having been satisfied with the report, the Magistrate concerned passed a preliminary order on 18-7-89. Km. Shobha Bos was the first party, whereas Manoj Kumar Yadav was the second party in the aforesaid criminal proceedings. They were directed to prove their respective contentions about the possession over the disputed premises. Consequently they filed their respective written statements and evidence for that purpose. Km. Shobha Bos was the first party, whereas Manoj Kumar Yadav was the second party in the aforesaid criminal proceedings. They were directed to prove their respective contentions about the possession over the disputed premises. Consequently they filed their respective written statements and evidence for that purpose. ( 7 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the Additional City Magistrate I, Allahabad held vide his impugned judgment and order dated 23/07/1990 that Manoj Kumar Yadav was interfering with the peaceful possession of the first party Km. Shobha Bos over the disputed premises and therefore, he restrained him from doing so. Aggrieved, the second party Manoj Kumar Yadav preferred this revision against the aforesaid order. ( 8 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 9 ) IT is not ascertainable as to on what date the previous tenant A. N. David actually vacated the premises in question. He was under obligation under S. 15 (2) of U. P. Act. No. XIII of 1972 to give notice in writing in a prescribed Form to the landlady Km. Shobha Bos not less than 15 days before the vacation of the disputed premises by him. But he did not do so. The authority concerned was required to get the disputed shop inspected in the event of the vacation of the same by A. N. David. That inspection was to be made in the presence of the land-lady Km. Shobha Bos and the tenant A. N. David. But in the instant case the landlady Km. Shobha Bos was not present at the time of the inspection of the disputed shop. A notice of the date of consideration of the question of allotment after the receipt of the intimation of the vacancy of the disputed shop was to be issued by the authority concerned to the landlady. But no notice as such was actually served upon the landlady Km. Shobha Bos in the instant case. The aforesaid allotment order was made ex parte in favour of Manoj Kumar Yadav. That order was ultimately cancelled on the protest made by the landlady Km. Shobha Bos subsequently. Therefore, there is presently no allotment order in favour of revisionist Manoj Kumar Yadav in respect of the disputed shop. Shobha Bos in the instant case. The aforesaid allotment order was made ex parte in favour of Manoj Kumar Yadav. That order was ultimately cancelled on the protest made by the landlady Km. Shobha Bos subsequently. Therefore, there is presently no allotment order in favour of revisionist Manoj Kumar Yadav in respect of the disputed shop. ( 10 ) IN paragraph 5 of his affidavit Manoj Kumar Yadav has mentioned that in pursuance of the order of allotment he came in possession over the premises in dispute and has established his business there in which he has been running since the year 1987. It may be mentioned that his affidavit is conspicuously silent on the point of date on which he actually took possession over the disputed shop. His affidavit is also vague and ambiguous on the point of the date or month in which he actually started business in the disputed shop. His affidavit cannot, therefore, be implicitly relied upon. ( 11 ) THE revisionist Manoj Kumar Yadav was a salesman of the previous tenant A. N. David. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, Manoj Kumar Yadav and A. N. David can very well be said to have been in collusion with each other against the landlady Km. Shobha Bos. Manoj Kumar Yadav put the landlady Km. Shobha. Bos to embarrassment, harassment and humiliation and also deprived her of coming in possession over the disputed premises by initiating various proceedings one after the other and obtaining ex parte orders in some of them in his favour and ultimately creating confusion. Not only this but he appears to have also made confusion worse confounded. His position is, however, that of an unauthorised occupant under S. 13 of the U. P. Act of 1972 particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. This is what has been observed by the Magistrate concerned in his impugned judgment and order. ( 12 ) THE allotment order appears to have been passed in respect of the disputed shop measuring 8 x 8 only. But Manoj Kumar Yadav appears to have forcibly and unauthorisedly occupied certain other portion connected with the disputed shop. This indicates nothing but his highhandedness. ( 13 ) THE landlady Km. Shobha Bos is quite alone. Her father died. She appears to be an unmarried lady. But Manoj Kumar Yadav appears to have forcibly and unauthorisedly occupied certain other portion connected with the disputed shop. This indicates nothing but his highhandedness. ( 13 ) THE landlady Km. Shobha Bos is quite alone. Her father died. She appears to be an unmarried lady. It may be mentioned that within a woman, a man is conceived, from a woman he is born, he is betrothed and married to a woman. With a woman, man develops friendship and with her he goes through life. When a woman dies, another is sought for, man is bound to a woman. She gives birth to kings and queens, seers and saints, artists and scientists, thinkers and philosophers and whom not. From a woman, a woman is born, None may exist without a woman. Only the one true God is exterior to woman. How inevitable, pious and pure a woman is. And yet, a man leaves no stone unturned to take undue advantage of a woman, if she becomes hapless and helpless on account of her own adverse circumstances. This is what appears to have been done by Manoj Kumar Yadav in collusion with A. N. David and vice versa. ( 14 ) VALUE of life appears to have been given to the wind. These powers namely money power, man power and muscle power appear to have deprived the poor, the hapless and the helpless of their valid claims in regard to their house or belongings stored therein. This is what appears to have happened in the instant case. If such state of affairs is allowed to continue, there will be a complete chaos. In other words no landlord/landlady will ever think of even having a glance or glimpse of his/her house or belongings therein not to speak of getting actual physical possession thereon even after the same being vacated by a tenant. ( 15 ) THE Court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality, material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 16 ) IN the result this revision is dismissed. The stay order passed therein stands vacated. The impugned judgment and order is confirmed. ( 15 ) THE Court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality, material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 16 ) IN the result this revision is dismissed. The stay order passed therein stands vacated. The impugned judgment and order is confirmed. Besides in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the interest of justice my conscience impels, inspires and dictates me to direct the court concerned to get the premises in dispute vacated from the revisionist Manoj Kumar Yadav and put the opposite party landlady Km. Shobha Bos in possession over it within ten days from the date of receipt of this order positively. The court concerned will also submit its compliance report to this Court within twenty days thereafter. The authority concerned will thereafter determine the question of allotment release of the premises in question afresh in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. .