Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21-1-1994, passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the objection of the petitioner against an application for delivery of possession filed by the landlord- respondent No. 2 under Section 23 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected. 2. RESPONDENT No. 2 is landlord of building bearing Municipal No. 989, Muthigani, Allahabad. RESPONDENT No. 3 was admittedly a tenant of the said premises. RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for release of the building in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act on 4-8-1989, on the allegation that the premises in question was let out to respondent No. 3 in the year 1970 for his transport business which was being run in the name and style of M/s. Shiva Ji Transport Company. He used to book goods as well as ply his trucks. At the time of letting out the premises in question respondent No. 2 was in the employment with M/s. Hanuman Prasad and Brothers which used to deal with the business of sale of Indian-made foreign liquors. The firm closed its business on account of heavy losses. The service of the employees including that of landlord-respondent No. 2 were retrenched. He became jobless and now wants to establish himself in business. It was further averred that the tenant-respondent No. 3 illegally accom modated Sri Lalta Prasad (petitioner) who was participating in his trade. The petitioner filed suit No. 571 of 1989-Lalta Prasad Jaiswal v. Jagannath Sahai Verma and others in the Court of Munsif West, Allahabad for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from evicting him from the disputed premises on the allegation that respondent No. 3 had vacated the accommodation which was under his tenancy. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 let out front portion of the building in question to the petitioner and the back portion of it was retained by respondent No. 2. He cannot be evicted illegally and forcibly. The trial court is alleged to have passed an order restraining the defendants from evicting the petitioner except in accordance with law. 3. THE petitioner also filed an application for his impleadment as a party in RA. He cannot be evicted illegally and forcibly. The trial court is alleged to have passed an order restraining the defendants from evicting the petitioner except in accordance with law. 3. THE petitioner also filed an application for his impleadment as a party in RA. Case No. 105 of 1989, filed by respondent No. 2, under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act against respondent No. 3 on the allegation that he was a tenant of the premises in question. THE Prescribed Authority rejected his application by its order dated 27-6-1991. After rejection of the application, the tenant- respondent No. 3 entered into a compromise with landlord- respondent No. 2. THE Prescribed Authority on 2nd July, 1991 allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 21 of the Act and released the disputed premises in his favour by its order dated 2nd July, 1991. THE petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 102 of 1991 before the District Judge, against the order dated 27-6-1991 rejecting his application for impleadment as a party in the case and also against the order dated 2nd July, 1991, whereby the Prescribed Authority had allowed the release application of respondent No. 2. THE appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 21-5-1992. THE petitioner challenged these orders in writ petition No. 20923 of 1992. This writ petition was dismissed by this court on 28-9-1992 with the observation that the order of release passed in the case against respondent No. 2 shall not be binding upon the petitioner. 4. RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application for delivery of possession under Section 23 of the Act in pursuance of the release order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 2nd July, 1991. The petitioner filed objection and it was stated by him that he was a tenant of the premises in question and the order which has been passed against respondent No. 3 is not binding upon him and he cannot be evicted in pursuance of that order. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the petitioner is not a tenant of the premises in question and rejected the objection of the petitioner by its order dated 21-9-1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly urged that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner is not a tenant of the premises in question in erroneous in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly urged that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner is not a tenant of the premises in question in erroneous in law. Secondly, the petitioner has filed Suit No. 571 of 1989 in the Civil Court and the question involved in whether the petitioner is a tenant and till the matter is decided finally in the suit, he is not liable to be evicted and lastly, it is urged that the petitioner was not party in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act which was initiated against respondent No. 3 alone. He cannot be evicted on the basis of the order passed in that proceeding. 5. THE petitioner had filed objection stating that respondent No. 3 was earlier a tenant and running his business in the disputed premises. He closed his business and handed over its possession to landlord- respondent No. 2, who later on let out front portion to the petitioner in the year 1975 and retained its back portion with him. THE petitioner, admittedly, did not file any rent receipt. It was averred that no rent receipt was issued by him to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 denied that the accommodation in question was ever let out to the petitioner. He filed an affidavit stating that in fact, respondent No. 3 had sublet the accommodation to the petitioner. THE petitioner filed a copy of the registration certificate of the Transport Company of the year 1983. This document was considered by the Prescribed Authority and it was found that the mere fact of registration of the Transport Company in the year 1983 does not establish that the petitioner was occupying this premises as a tenant. There was no other document to prove that the petitioner was a tenant since the year 1975. THE Prescribed Authority recorded a finding that the petitioner was not a tenant of any portion of the disputed accommodation. THE petitioner was claiming that he was a tenant of the disputed premises and the burden of proof was upon him. There was admitted, no documentary evidence to prove that he was a tenant. His version in the affidavit was denied by the landlord. THE finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner is not a tenant of the disputed, premises does not suffer from any illegality. 6. There was admitted, no documentary evidence to prove that he was a tenant. His version in the affidavit was denied by the landlord. THE finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the petitioner is not a tenant of the disputed, premises does not suffer from any illegality. 6. THE second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that till the suit filed by him in the Civil Court is not decided, in respect of his rights, the petitioner cannot be evicted, has no substance. THE petitioner filed Suit No. 571 of 1989 for permanent injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from evicting him forcibly and illegally on the allegation that he is a tenant. THE mere fact that he has filed the suit does not operate as stay of the proceedings for enforcement of the order passed under Section 21 of the Act against the tenant. If any person has independent right, he can establish the same by filing an objection in that proceeding also. THE Prescribed Authority can consider the objection and record its own finding while disposing of the objection filed by a person who claims his own independent right to remain in occupation of the premises in dispute. The last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority cannot execute an order passed under Section 21 of the Act against a person who was not a party in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. Section 23 of the Act contemplates enforcement of eviction order passed under Section 21 of the Act. It reads as under : "23. Enforcement of eviction order.- (1) The Prescribed Authority may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary for evicting any tenant against whom in order is made under Section 21 or an appeal under Section 22, as the case may be, or against any other person found in actual occupation, and for putting the landlord into possession. (2) Every order of the Prescribed Authority in proceedings under this section shall be final. " 7. THE Prescribed Authority under Section 23 of the Act may evict any tenant against whom an order has been passed under Section 21 of the Act and also against any other person found in actual occupation. It is not confined only against the tenant. " 7. THE Prescribed Authority under Section 23 of the Act may evict any tenant against whom an order has been passed under Section 21 of the Act and also against any other person found in actual occupation. It is not confined only against the tenant. THE tenant may have left the possession or put any other person in possession which was under his tenancy or on its possession some person un- authorisedly occupies it. These person can be evicted by the Prescribed Authority under Section 23 of the Act. Where it is found that the tenant was in its occupation and later on, on its vacation it has been occupied by a person either claiming through him or otherwise. THE tenant is liable to restore the possession to the landlord from whom he had taken the possession at the time of its letting and if he fails to deliver possession and permits it to be occupied by some other person either by his act or omission, the landlord is entitled to lake possession from him and the Prescribed Authority will not feel helpless in a situation where the possession has been passed on to some one after it has been vacated by the tenant and he can enforce the order against such person when an order has been passed against a tenant under Section 21 of the Act. 8. SECTION 108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act provides that on the determination of the lease, the lease is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property. In Pt. Kishan Lal v. Ganpat Ram Khosla and another, AIR 1961 SC 1554 , it was held that the tenant does not absolve himself from the obligation of his tenancy b' intimating that as from a particular date he will cease to be in occupation under the landlord and that some one else whom the landlord is not willing to accept as tenant. It is one of the obligations of contract of tenancy that the tenant will on determination of a tenant, put the landlord in possession of the property demised. Unless possession is given to the landlord he continues to hold the premises during the period as tenant. It is one of the obligations of contract of tenancy that the tenant will on determination of a tenant, put the landlord in possession of the property demised. Unless possession is given to the landlord he continues to hold the premises during the period as tenant. In Padmawati v, Pyare Lal Vacher, 1966 ALJ 688, where the tenant alleged to have vacated the accommodation and was allotted to some one it was held that till the tenant delivered the possession to the landlord, his liability to pay the rent continues as he is bound to put the landlord into possession under Section 108 (q) of the Transfer of Property Act. 9. IN case the landlord has put a tenant into possession, it is the duty of the tenant to deliver possession to the landlord when he vacates the possession but in case he either delivers possession to someone else unauthorisedly or someone takes possession unauthorisedly. Such person cannot claim any independent right. He comes into possession only when the tenant has vacated the accommodation. A third person who has obtained the possession when the tenant has vacated cannot claim an independent right to remain in possession except in accordance with law. His possession shall be deemed to be on behalf of the person who was already occupying as tenant. If a person has occupied the premises on the basis that it was not in occupation of a tenant, as alleged by the landlord, he can establish his independent right but once it is established that a tenant was occupying and subsequently on his vacation comes to its possession, his possession cannot be treated in his own independent right unless he establishes that he obtained the possession of the premises in question in accordance with law. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Hukum Singh v. Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar and others, 1981 ARC 6, wherein a claim was made by a third person that he was a co-tenant of the accommodation, he cannot be evicted under Section 23 of the Act when he was not made a party in the proceeding under Section 21 of the Act, this Court held that as he failed to prove that he was a co- tenant, he can be evicted by the Prescribed Authority under Section 23 of the Act. The order under Section 23 of the Act can be enforced not only for evicting a tenant against whom an order is made under Section 21 but also against any other person in actual occupation and for putting the landlord into possession. In Ubaidur Rahman v. District Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1986 (1) ARC 364, Hon'ble R. M. Sahai, J. (as he then was) held that Section 23 of the Act empowers the Prescribed Authority to use force, if necessary to evict not only a tenant against whom an order of release under Section 21 or an appeal under Section 22 has been passed but also a person found in occupation to enable the landlord to obtain, possession. The person who filed objection under Section 23 of the Act claiming himself to be a co-tenant but as he failed to establish his claim, it was held that he was liable to be evicted though he was not a party in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. Similar view was expressed in Durga Prasad and others v. Prescribed Authority/ist Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi and others, 1995 (1) ARC 539. 11. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision M/s. Ravi Sahkari Avas Samiti Allahabad v. Prescribed Authority Allahabad and another, 1989 (2) ARC 126, wherein the question was whether a person claiming title in the property in dispute on the basis that he had purchased it from its true owner, is entitled to be impleaded as a party in an application filed under Section 21 of the Act by a person claiming himself as a landlord. It was held that he is not entitled to be impleaded as a party and as to who is owner of the property is a matter of adjudication by a regular Court. It was, however, observed that if an order is passed under Section 21 of the Act such person would not be bound by the order of the Prescribed Authority as he claims possession independently of the tenant. In this case the person was claiming title to the property and not tenancy rights. 12. ANOTHER case Deefali Bhattacharya and another v. Ramji and others, 1990 (1) ARC 348 is also not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case the persons in occupation were claiming title as co- sharers in the premises in question. In this case the person was claiming title to the property and not tenancy rights. 12. ANOTHER case Deefali Bhattacharya and another v. Ramji and others, 1990 (1) ARC 348 is also not applicable to the facts of the case as in that case the persons in occupation were claiming title as co- sharers in the premises in question. The Court, however, made it clear that the legislative intent of Section 23 is to evict the tenant against whom the order has been passed for eviction or any person claiming through the tenant or a person who may be found to be a trespasser in the disputed accommodation is liable to be evicted. The petitioner is not claiming any independent title to the property in question. The petitioner is otherwise also not entitled to any equitable relief in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He was claiming as tenant in the property in question. It has been found that he failed to establish his tenancy rights in the disputed premises. A person either claiming through a tenant or is found otherwise in unlawful possession, cannot resist a lawful order passed under Section 21 of the Act against a tenant. No person is entitled to occupy any building governed by U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 unless there is an order of allotment or release passed in his favour under Section 16 of the Act and in absence of any such order his possession will be unlawful under Section 13 of the Act. A person who is in unlawful possession cannot claim any relief to remain in possession of the disputed accommodation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. IN Hari Sharan Mishra v. Prescribed Authority, Munsif Dehradun and others, 1988 (2) ARC 214, it has been held that the Rent Control Act does not recognize occupation of trespasser of the building and he has no locus standi to challenge the proceedings for execution of the release order under Section 23 of the Act. As the petitioner filed to prove that he was tenant of the premises in question, he is not entitled to resist the delivery of possession to the landlord under Section 23 of the Act. 14. IN view of the above there is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.