Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. (2) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenged the validity of the order dated 14.11.2000 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to produce evidence at appellate stage has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It appears that an application under Section 21(1)(a) 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, was filed by the landlords-respondents No. 2 and 3 for release of the building in question as the building in question was needed for their personal use and occupation. The said application was filed against late Shri Balbir Singh, the then sitting tenant in House No. 448, Begum Bagh, Meerut. On receipt of notice, Balbir Singh filed his written statement controverting and denying the facts stated in the release application. Parties, thereafter, produced evidence in support of their cases. The Prescribed Authority, after going through the evidence on record, recorded findings on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of respondent No. 2 and 3, for short the contesting respondents, and allowed the release application by its judgment and order dated 22.12.1995. Challenging the validity of the said order, Balbir Singh filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the said appeal, Balbir Singh died and no steps to substitute his heirs were taken by the heirs of Balbir Singh but an application to substitute his only son Shri Mahendra Veer Singh in place of Balbir Singh was filed by the petitioner Shri Dharmpal Virendra, son of Shri Shyam Singh claiming that the said application was filed with the permission and concurrence of Shri Mahendra Veer Singh. The said application was allowed. Shri Mahendra Veer Singh, son of Shri Balbir Singh at the relevant time was outside the country, when he returned back to Meerut, he filed an application supported by an affidavit stating that he never permitted to the petitioner to file any application on his behalf in the appeal filed by his father on the basis of the application filed by Mahendra Veer Singh, the appeal filed by late Balbir Singh was dismissed as having abated on 14.10.1999. Thus the order of release passed by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the contesting respondents became final. The contesting respondents thereafter applied for executing the order dated 21.12.1995. Their application was registered as Execution Case No. 57 of 1999. (3) The petitioner, it appears, without any order of allotment in his favour and without permission of the contesting respondents, occupied the building in dispute claiming that he was permitted to occupy the same by the contesting respondents after charging three months advance rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. The petitioner filed objection in the execution case claiming that he was entitled to continue in occupation of the building in question and the execution application, which was filed under Section 47, C.P.C. was liable to be dismissed. The contesting respondents thereafter made an application for amendment of the execution application. By means of the said application they simply wanted to convent the execution application from Section 47, C.P.C. to Section 23 of the Act. It was on 27.5.2000 that the petitioner gave an undertaking to the Prescribed Authority that on the next date fixed, i.e. on 10.8.2000, he will argue the case but even on that date no arguments were made and hearing of the case was got adjourned. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to lead evidence by its judgment and order dated 14.11.2000. In the said order it was ob served by the Prescribed Authority as under:- "Hence in view of the above discussion I come to the conclusion that oral evidence is not required. This application for permission to ad duce oral evidence has been moved just to prolong the disposal of objection, otherwise there is no substance in the application. Hence 16-C application is rejected." (4) In the said order it was also observed by the Prescribed Authority as under:- "This application is glaring example of misuse of the process of the Court. Disposal of this Misc. Case is being delayed on one ground or the other inspite of repeated requests by this Court to cooperate." Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Prescribed Authority has acted illegally in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to produce evidence, the impugned order was, therefore, liable to be quashed. Disposal of this Misc. Case is being delayed on one ground or the other inspite of repeated requests by this Court to cooperate." Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Prescribed Authority has acted illegally in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to produce evidence, the impugned order was, therefore, liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the petitioner has admittedly got no allotment order in his favour. There is nothing reliable on the record to show that he was lawfully occupying the building in question. The petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. The objection filed by the petitioner is hit by Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. He has got no locus standi to file the present petition and to object to the execution of the release order dated 21.12.1995. (5) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (6) Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to demonstrate through the material on the record to show that any allotment order in respect of the building in question was ever granted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was, thus, in occupation of the building in question wholly illegally in contravention of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. The authority below was, thus, right in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner by judgment and order dated 14.11.2000. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It is, however, observed that the Authority below shall decide the execution case expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the said authority as there is no justification in keeping the matter pending at the instance of a person who has no locus standi to intervene. (7) With these observations and directions this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.