Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the prescribed Authority dated 20.10.1993 whereby he allowed the release application filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "the Act") and the order dated 20.5.1995 affirming the said order in revision passed by respondent No. 1. 2. THE facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 is landlord of House No. 302, Mohalla Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur. THE petitioner is tenant 6fsr portion of this house consisting of two rooms, kitchen, latrine and bath. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on the ground that he retired in July 1981 from the post of P. A. in the Aligarh Muslim University. He is residing in a rented house after his retirement at Aligarh. There was a partition in his family and he got eastern portion of House No. 302, Mohalla Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur. He wants to live in the disputed house. He has married his four daughters and his fifth daughter, who is mentally retarded, is permanently living within them. The petitioner constested the application and denied that the need of landlord-respondent No. 3 was bona fide and genuine. He is residing at Aligarh in a rented house and there is no reason that he should live at Shah jahanpur. He is carrying on part-time job at Aligarh. 3. THE prescribed authority allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 and recorded a finding that the respondent No. 3 has retired from ser vice in July 1981 and is living at Aligarh in a rented house. He requires the disputed house for his residential purposes. THE petitioner filed appeal against the order of the prescribed Authority and the appeal has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 by order dated 20.5.1995. 4. I have heard Sri R. Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the accommodation in question was taken on rent without any allotment order being passed in his favour. The contract was void as it was against the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the accommodation in question was taken on rent without any allotment order being passed in his favour. The contract was void as it was against the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act. It is urged that though the possession of the petitioner can be treated as unauthorised under Section 13 of the Act, he cannot be treated as a tenant. The application under Section 21 can be filed only against a tenant. The status of the petitioner shall be that of an unauthorised occupant and not that of a tenant. The application filed by respondent No. 3 is not maintainable. He has placed reliance upon Full Bench decision of this Court, Nutan Kumar and others Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and others 1994 A. L. J. 999, wherein it was held that an agreement offending a statute or public policy or forbidden by law is not merely void by it is invalid from the nativity. The agreement of lease between landlord and tenant without any allotment order being passed is inconsistent with statutory provisions of Section 11 of the Act. It was held that as the agreement of tenancy is inconsistent in law, no decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord in a suit filed by him against such a tenant. 5. RESPONDENT No. 3 had filed an application for release of the disputed premises on the allegation that the petitioner is a tenant. This fact was admitted by the petitioner in his written statement. He never pleaded that he is unauthorised occupant. In case he had pleaded that he is unauthorised occupant the accommodation would have been taken as vacant. On an application of the landlord being filed under Section 16 (1) (b) it could have been released in his favour. The tenant himself having taken the stand that he is a tenant, the prescribed Authority was justified in entertaining the application filed by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. 6. IN Smt. Protima Chatterji and others v. Special Judge, Kanpur and others, 1992 A. L. J. 870, it was held that once the tenant admitted the relation ship of landlord and tenant he cannot thereafter plead to be unauthorised occupant. The application filed under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act is maintainable. 6. IN Smt. Protima Chatterji and others v. Special Judge, Kanpur and others, 1992 A. L. J. 870, it was held that once the tenant admitted the relation ship of landlord and tenant he cannot thereafter plead to be unauthorised occupant. The application filed under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of the Act is maintainable. In Munni Lal v. Prescribed Authority, Agra and others, 1993 (11) Luck-now Civil Decisions 388, it was held that the proceedings of release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and Section 16 (l) (b) of the Act can be taken simultaneously. There is no legal impediment in initiating or continuing simultaneous proceedings under both the provisions. 7. THE prescribed Authority has allowed the application on the finding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine. His finding has been affirmed by the appellate authority. It has been found that the petitioner has retired from service in the year 1981 and is living in a rented house at Aligarh. He wants to live in his own house situate in Shahjahanpur with his family members. This finding does not suffer from any manifest error of law. In case the petitioner treats himself as unauthorised occupant he cannot claim any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to remain in occupation. 8. THE last submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to consider that only a part of the accommodation can be released in favour of the landlord. He has placed reliance upon Smt. Sunita Devi and others v. Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow and others, 1994 (2) A. R. C. 24, wherein the court has taken the view that the authorities have to consider whether a part of the building under the tenancy is to be released for the satisfaction of the need of the landlord or the entire building under his tenancy is to be released. In the present case it is admitted that the petitioner has two rooms' accommodation. Considering the family members of the landlord-Respondent No. 3, it cannot be held that only one room should be released and another room should be left to the tenant for his occupation. Besides, the kitchen, latrine and bathroom are single in the disputed accommodation. 9. In the present case it is admitted that the petitioner has two rooms' accommodation. Considering the family members of the landlord-Respondent No. 3, it cannot be held that only one room should be released and another room should be left to the tenant for his occupation. Besides, the kitchen, latrine and bathroom are single in the disputed accommodation. 9. IN view of the above discussion it is not a fit case for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. IN the end learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to vacate the accommodation. His children are studying in schools. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is granted time to vacate the disputed accommodation by 30th April, 1996 provided the petitioner gives a written undertaking before the prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, within three weeks from today by filing" an affidavit that he would vacate the accommodation in question within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to respondent No. 3. Petition dismissed.