J. C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. D. Mandhyan counsel for the petitioners and also Sri Veer Singh and Sri Dinesh tiwari counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 8. 5. 97 whereby the accommodation in question has been released in favour of the landlords after declaration of vacancy. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the petitioners came to occupy the building in question in the year 1986 without any order of allotment. The only question which arose for determination before the courts below was whether the building at the time of letting was governed by the provisions of u. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 or not. The settled position of law, as it stands after the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nootans Kumar case, 1993 (2) ARC 204, is that after the enforcement of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. any letting made in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is Illegal and vo|d and the tenanted accommodation would be deemed to be vacant and open for allotment or release as the case may be. It was further held in the aforesaid decision that such a contract of tenancy entered into between landlord and tenant is not enforceable in law, being illegal and void. ( 4 ) IN the present case, even as per the petitioners own case they were inducted into the premises in question by the previous owner in the year 1986. However, the petitioners contention before the Courts below was that the building in question was constructed in the year 1983. This contention of the petitioners has not been accepted by the Courts below on a clear and specific finding that as per the Municipal Quinquennial Assessment, the building in question had been assessed much prior to the year, 1975. It is settled law that the date of construction of a building is to be determined in accordance with Explanation 1 to Section 2 (2) of the Act. This explanation, appears to have been added to provide a simple, convenient and expeditious procedure for determining the date when construction of a building be deemed to have been completed. It is settled law that the date of construction of a building is to be determined in accordance with Explanation 1 to Section 2 (2) of the Act. This explanation, appears to have been added to provide a simple, convenient and expeditious procedure for determining the date when construction of a building be deemed to have been completed. It says that the date of construction shall be deemed to be the date on which the completion of construction is reported or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in case of building subject to assessment, the dale on which the first assessment thereof comes Into effect. It is only in the absence of any one of these three things that the date of completion of building is to be taken as the date of its actual occupation. The Explanation makes use of an Important legal fiction. The effect of a legal fiction by a deeming clause is well-known. Legislature can Introduce a statutory fiction and Courts Will have to proceed on the assumption that such State of affairs exists on the relevant date. One has to bid bid to treat an imaginary State of affairs as real. Legal fictions have their grass-roots in reality ; it is a superficial view which regards them as either myth or figments of fancy. On the contrary, they are the veritable products of pragmatism, practical expedients devised for the purpose of illumining distinctly the dim contours of an elusive vista and making it amenable to legal adjudication. The object behind introducing this statutory legal fiction in the Explanation seems to be that the Legislature must have conceived that it was not always easy to define as to when construction of a building has actually been completed or was it still in the process of completion, and the Courts may be faced with two diametrically opposite versions. Perhaps to avoid such conflicting claims, a specific criteria has been furnished for deciding the question as to what constitutes a completed construction, instead of leaving the matter to be decided on the oral evidence of the parties. ( 5 ) IN the present case, both the Courts below have found as a fact that the building in question is subject to assessment and had been assessed much prior to 1. 4. ( 5 ) IN the present case, both the Courts below have found as a fact that the building in question is subject to assessment and had been assessed much prior to 1. 4. 75 as the same is shown in the quinquennial assessment Register for the years 1975 to 1980. In this view of the matter, the Act was applicable in the year 1986 when even as per the petitioners case, the accommodation was let out to them. And since the said letting had been made without any order of allotment, the occupation of the petitioners was unauthorised and in the eye of law the accommodation was vacant. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended before this Court that the copies of the municipal Assessment were filed by the landlord along with his rejoinder-affidavit and the petitioners had no opportunity to rebut those papers. First of all, 1 may state that no such objection was ever taken by the petitioners before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer nor any prayer was made by them for giving time for filing some documentary evidence in rebuttal. In the writ petition also, it could not be shown that the copies of the Municipal Assessments filed by the landlord were Incorrect nor any other material could be placed to Indicate that the building was not constructed before 1983 as alleged by the petitioners. Mere oral statement would not have the effect of changing the date of construction as determined under the provisions contained in Explanation 1 to Section 2 (2) of the Act. ( 7 ) SINCE petitioners have been held to be in unauthorised occupation, they have no right to challenge the claim of the landlord for releasing the accommodation in question in their favour. Even revision at their Instance was not maintainable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Naratni Tewari v. Mahendra Kumar Tripathi, 1998 (1) ARC 153. The position of an unauthorised occupant is not better than that of prospective allottee. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Taltb Hasan v. Additional District Judge, Nainttal, 1986 ARC 1, has taken the view that the prospective allottee has no right to contest the claim of the landlord for releasing the tenanted accommodation in his favour even on the principle of audt atteram pattern. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Taltb Hasan v. Additional District Judge, Nainttal, 1986 ARC 1, has taken the view that the prospective allottee has no right to contest the claim of the landlord for releasing the tenanted accommodation in his favour even on the principle of audt atteram pattern. The petitioner thus cannot be heard in opposition to the landlords claim for the release of the accommodation in question. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, this writ petition is devoid of any force and must be dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be allowed some reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in question which admittedly was let out to the petitioners by the previous owner and they were not at all at fault. Such a letting was forbidden by law and, therefore, the petitioners were themselves guilty of placing themselves in a position which could not be protected in law. They cannot be allowed to found a claim upon their own wrongs. A wrongful or fraudulent act cannot be allowed to conduce to the advantage of the party who committed it. (Nul prendra advantage do son tort demense ). ( 9 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the petitioners are allowed time upto 31. 7. 98 to vacate the premises in question and hand over Its vacant possession to the landlords in whose favour the building has already been released under the order of R. C. and E. O. , subject to their filing an undertaking in writing before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within three weeks from today to the effect that they shall hand over physical vacant possession of the accommodation in question to the landlords on or before the aforesaid date and shall not Induct any third person therein and also that they shall clear the entire arrears of rent on or before 30. 4. 98. In case no such undertaking is filed within the time specified above and the other condition stated above is not compiled within the time as mentioned above, this order of extending time for delivery of possession shall stand automatically vacated. However, if the required undertaking is filed and the other condition is complied with, the petitioners eviction in pursuance of the Impugned release order shall remain suspended upto 31. 7. 98. However, if the required undertaking is filed and the other condition is complied with, the petitioners eviction in pursuance of the Impugned release order shall remain suspended upto 31. 7. 98. ( 10 ) WITH the above observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. .