Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) Heard. (2) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.3.1999 passed by the Respondent No. 1 declaring the building in question as vacant. In the present case, it was on the intimation of vacancy given by the landlord-Respondent No. 2, that the proceedings under Section 16 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 were initiated. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the Rent Control Inspector to make local inspection and to submit his report. The Inspector made a local Inspection and submitted his report. The Inspector reported that the building in question was vacant as the same was in occupation of the petitioner in contravention of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. On receipt of the report of the Rent Control Inspector, notices were issued to the par ties concerned. Petitioner filed his objection against the report of the Inspector to the effect that he was in occupation of the building in question since 19/5 therefore, there was no question of any vacancy. On the other hand, the landlord pleaded that petitioner came in occupation of the building in question in the year 1977 without any order of allotment illegally. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence oral and documentary. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer after going through the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner has occupied the building in question after 5.7.1976 without any order of allotment, therefore, he was an unauthorised occupant of the building in question. Having recorded the said findings relying upon the provisions of Section 12 of the Act declared the building in question as vacant, hence the present petition. (3) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Respondent No. 1 has ignored the evidence on record and has acted illegally in holding that the petitioner was in occupation of building in question after 5.7.1976, he was in occupation of building in question since 1975, therefore, the impugned order of vacancy was liable to be quashed. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the impugned order. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that the findings of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer are all findings of fact and are based on the relevant evidence on record. The writ petition has got no merit and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material on record. (4) The Rent Control and Eviction Officer recorded clear categorical finding that the petitioner has taken possession over the building in question in contravention of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act after July, 1976, therefore, he cannot be said to be a lawful occupant. The documentary evidence referred to and relied upon by the petitioner was not found reliable. On the other hand the evidence referred to and relied by the respondent was found reliable. The findings recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer are findings of fact, which are based on the relevant evidence on record that the petitioner came into occupation of the building in question illegally without any order of allotment after 1976. He, therefore, cannot be said to be lawful occupant of the building in question. In view of the said findings, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the petitioner may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the building in question. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that four months' time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the building in question subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in writing before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the effect that immediately on expiry of four months, he shall deliver the vacant possession of the building in question to the contesting respondent/landlord and shall also pay the rent of the building in question for the period he remains in occupation of the same. (5) In view of the said facts it is hereby provided that the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act for release/allotment shall go on in accordance with law and final orders may also be passed but same shall not be given effect to for a period of four months from today subject to the condition the petitioner furnishes an undertaking in writing before the Respondent No. 1 within three weeks from today, to the effect that immediately on expiry of four months or before he shall deliver vacant possession of the building in question to the contesting respondent and shall also make payment of the rent/damages for a period he remains in occupation of the building in question. Subject to what has been stated above the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.