Judgment S.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.1999 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer whereby the disputed accommodation has been declared as vacant. (2) The version of the petitioner is that he has inducted as tenant by the landlady-Respondent No. 2 is the disputed accommodation. An agreement of rent was executed between the parties on 7.10.1984. The landlady-Respondent No. 2, however, wanted to evict the petitioner by force. He filed Suit No. 434 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar restraining her dispossessing him from the accommodation in dispute otherwise than in due course of law. The house in question was constructed in the year 1987 and the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) were not applicable. Respondent No. 3 filed an application for allotment with the allegations that the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation without an allotment order and it should be deemed as vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Inspector submitted report that he was residing in the disputed accommodation without any allotment order and it should be treated as vacant. The petitioner filed objection to the said report and contended that he was inducted as tenant by the landlady-Respondent No. 2. The premises was taken on rent and as the disputed construction was made in the year 1987 the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. He cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant. Respondent No. 2 submitted a reply to the objection. It was stated that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1963 and the first floor of the same premises was constructed in the year 1969. It was assessed in the year 1963 and the provisions of the Act were applicable. One Harish Chand Srivastava was a tenant but he illegally passed on possession to the petitioner and he is unauthorised occupant. She denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the petitioner. She never entered into agreement of tenancy with the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1963. She denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the petitioner. She never entered into agreement of tenancy with the petitioner. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1963. The provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable and the petitioner occupied the premises without any allotment order passed in his favour and his possession was unauthorised and declared it vacant by the impugned order dated 16.4.1999. (3) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M. Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondent. (4) There is a controversy as to whether the petitioner was inducted as tenant by the landlady-respondent. The petitioner has relied upon an agreement dated 7.2.1994. Respondent No. 2, has denied that any such agreement was executed. The agreement, however, does not bear her signature. Her version was that one Harish Chandra Srivastava was tenant and he illegally transferred pos session of the disputed accommodation to the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit any rent receipt or any other document to prove that he was tenant of respondent No. 2. Even otherwise a person in possession/occupation without any allotment order being passed in his favour under Section 16 (1) (a) of the Act by the District Magistrate/rent Control and Eviction Officer, his possession shall be treated as unauthorised in violation of Section 12 read with Section 13 of the Act. Any agreement of tenancy between the landlord and tenant will be void in contravention of the said provision vide Nutan Kumar vs. IInd Additional District Judge, 1993 (22) ALR 437 (FB). (5) The main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1987 and as the accommodation was let out in the year 1989, the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. The landlady could have let it out to any person as the bar contained under Section 16 was not applicable. Respondent No. 2 alleged that her husband purchased a plot in the year 1963 and constructed the ground floor. The ground floor portion was assessed in 1964. The first floor was constructed in 1969 and thereafter the first floor was assessed. Respondent No. 2 alleged that her husband purchased a plot in the year 1963 and constructed the ground floor. The ground floor portion was assessed in 1964. The first floor was constructed in 1969 and thereafter the first floor was assessed. She filed quinquennial assessment for the year 1963-68, 1968-73, 1987-92 and 1973-78. The quinquennial assessment of the year 1963-68 shows the existence of three rooms on the ground of the house. The petitioner is in occupation of this accommodation. (6) It is contended that the ground floor portion was demolished and reconstructed. This has not been accepted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The ground floor portion could not have been demolished and reconstructed unless the first floor portion was demolished. Secondly, there is no material evidence to prove this fact. The petitioner has relied upon a show cause notice dated 1.8.1984 alleged to have been issued by the Kanpur Development Authority to Respondent No. 2 as to why the construction on the ground floor was being made after its demolition without sanction of any map. Another notice is alleged to have been given on 10.10.1985 issued by the Kanpur Development Authority to Respondent No. 2 to submit a map. The landlady- respondent has filed the reply received by her from the Kanpur Development Authority informing her that there was no file available in the office of the Kanpur Development Authority which could show that any notice dated 1.8.1984 or 10.10.1985 were issued to Respondent No. 2. Her contention was that these notices were forged in collusion with some person but in fact no such notice were issued by the Kanpur Development Authority, has taken any action against Respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the alleged notices. Secondly, the petitioner is in occupation of ground floor and unless the first floor was demolished, the ground floor could not be constructed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer on consideration of evidence has recorded finding that the disputed accommodation on the ground floor in occupation of the petitioner was constructed in the year 1963 and was first assessed in the year 1963. It is proved from the quinquennial assessment of the year 1963-68. This finding does not suffer from any manifest illegality. In view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.