Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 23.2.2000 whereby the building in question was declared vacant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order dated 21.8.2000 whereby the application to recall the said order of vacancy was dismissed. (2) It has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in occupation of building in question. House No. 8/170, Arya Nagar, Kanpur since 1975. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, his occupation stands regularised. The building in question was not vacant. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was not afforded full opportunity to defend his case and the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was wholly illegal, the same was therefore. Liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No. 3, Mr. A.N. Sinha, submitted that the building in question has already been allotted in favour of Respondent No. 3. He has also submitted that more than adequate opportunities of hearing have been afforded to the petitioner before declaration of vacancy. From the material on record, it is evident that notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.1.2000, thereafter 21.1.2000 was fixed for filing objections there after 4.2.2000, 11.2.2000, 16.2.2000 and 22.2.2000 were fixed but no objection was filed and no evidence was produced to show that the petitioner was a lawful occupant therefore, the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner to the contrary cannot be accepted. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order declaring the vacancy. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.