The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamusbe issued directing the opposite parties to restore the possession of the petitioner in Shop No. 3 of house No. 746, Palton Bazar, Sultanpur and to make the status-quoante as existed prior to 26- 11-2000. A direction be also issued to the opposite parties to return all the articles which were taken away while evicting the petitioner forcibly and to pay the compensation for damages caused during unlawful eviction. 2. According to petitioner, he entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 2, Smt. Dulari Devi to take her shop situated in her house No. 746, Palton Bazar, Sultanpur on rent and paid Rs. 30,000 as advance and also agreed to pay Rs. 250 per month as rent with effect from 13-11-1997 till 13-11-2007. A copy of the agreement is annexed as Annexure No. 1. The petitioner was carrying on his business in the said shop since 13-11-1997 and paying the monthly rent regularly to opposite party No. 2. Some one assured opposite party No. 2 to give higher rent for the shop and, therefore opposite party No. 2 started insisting the petitioner to vacate the shop. On 20-9-2000, opposite parties threatened the petitioner and directed him to vacate the shop. Having no other alternative the petitioner filed Regular Suit No. 999 of 2000 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (South), Sultanpur praying that he be not dis-possessed from the shop, a copy of the plaint is Annexed as Annexure No. 1-A. The petitioner has also moved an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said regular suit to restrain the opposite party No. 2 from interfering in his peaceful possession. The said application could not be disposed of. The opposite party No. 2 made some complaint to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur who sent Dr. Ram Bilas Yadav, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Sultanpur, alongwith Shri Ashok Shukla, C. O. City, Sultanpur on 9-10-2000. Both the Officers warned the petitioner and asked him to vacate the shop. No notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner gave a representation to the opposite party No. 1 informing him about the pendency of the suit in Civil Court. Both the Officers warned the petitioner and asked him to vacate the shop. No notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The petitioner gave a representation to the opposite party No. 1 informing him about the pendency of the suit in Civil Court. Although the representation of the petitioner was pending, on 26-11-2000 at about 3. 00 p. m. the opposite party No. 1 sent force along with some Officers at the shop of the petitioner. As it was Sunday, the shop was closed. In presence of District Authorities, the lock was broken and all the items kept inside the shop were taken and the petitioner was dispossessed. Opposite party No. 1 evicted the petitioner from the shop without due course of law. 3. The opposite party No. 2 has contended that the petitioner was a friend of her elder son Uma Shankar and used to come to her house during the life time of her son. Both his son and the petitioner used to take liquor in the shot. That she never entered into any agreement with the petitioner nor she ever gave the shop on rent to the petitioner. That the petitioner is a man of bad character and several criminal cases are pending against him. On 20-10-2000 the petitioner has placed his lock on the shop in question. 4. The opposite party No. 1 District Magistrate has also filed counter affidavit and has contended that the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Dulari Devi had moved an application dated 18-9-2000 stating therein that the petitioner had taken forcible possession over the shop and because of this unauthorized occupation her son was shocked and died. Opposite party No. 2 moved another application dated 9-11-2000 praying therein to get her shop vacated as the petitioner was harassing her and had also threatened that if no action would be taken by the administration she would be compelled for self-immolation. 5. It has also been contended that one of the daughter of opposite party No. 2, namely, Smt. Asha Rani, widow of late Shri Amarnath Singh who died in active service also sent an application through Lokesh Chandra, Major, Battery Commander praying for getting the house vacated. That enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar Sultanpur and C. O. City, Sultanpur who submitted their report on 17-11- 2000. That enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar Sultanpur and C. O. City, Sultanpur who submitted their report on 17-11- 2000. It was recommended in the report that since the possession of the petitioner was found to be illegal and unauthorized, he may be evicted from the shop. That there are several cases pending against him, hence, Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Naib-Tehsildar for taking necessary action and the Naib-Tehsildar on 26-11-2000 got the accommodation vacated and prepared the inventory of goods available in the shop. That unauthorized arms and ammunition was found inside the shop for which First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. That since the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the shop and the application was received from Army Officers, the petitioner was evicted. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the shop and his lock was placed at the shop at the time when he was dispossessed. Learned Standing Counsel has failed to point out any law under which the petitioner could be said to have been evicted from the shop in question. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition as he has already filed Regular Suit in Civil Court and he can claim possession in the said suit by amending the plaint. 7. The case of the petitioner is that he was in authorized possession of the shop in question on the basis of an agreement executed in his favour by the respondent Smt. Dulari Devi. The terms of the agreement provide that the tenancy would be from 13- 11-1997 to 12-11-2007, that is, for a period of ten years. The agreement is unregistered and is on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 5. The respondent, Smt. Dulari Devi has denied to have executed any agreement in favour of the petitioner. The agreement is on insufficient Stamp Paper. 8. The District Magistrate has filed a copy of the application moved by the respondent, Smt. Dulari Devi alongwith his affidavit Annexure No. SCA-1 is the application moved by Smt. Dulari Devi to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur. In this application Smt. Dulari Devi had stated that her son Jeetu used to sit on the shop in question. 8. The District Magistrate has filed a copy of the application moved by the respondent, Smt. Dulari Devi alongwith his affidavit Annexure No. SCA-1 is the application moved by Smt. Dulari Devi to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur. In this application Smt. Dulari Devi had stated that her son Jeetu used to sit on the shop in question. As he was illiterate and did not keep good health, the petitioner took undue advantage of it and took forcible possession over the shop in question and as a consequence of it Jeetu died. That since the death of Jeetu the petitioner is in occupation of the shop in question. In another application moved to the District Magistrate, the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Dulari Devi has stated that the petitioner was a friend of Jeetu and both used to take liquor in the shop. After the death of her son, the petitioner took forcible possession over the shop and whenever she asked to vacate he gave false assurance that he would vacate the shop but did not vacate. Thus according to the application moved by Smt. Dulari Devi, she admits possession of the petitioner on the shop in question since the time of death of her son. In her counter affidavit also she has admitted this position but has however, stated that the petitioner had locked the shop in question on 20-10-2000. 9. The petitioner has filed a Regular Suit for permanent injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sultanpur. From a perusal of the formal order passed in the Regular Suit as contained in Annexure No. 4, it transpires that the suit was filed on 13-10-2000. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that since the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the shop in question respondent No. 2, Smt. Dulari Devi had requested the District Administration to get her possession restored and the District Administration got the possession restored to her. If the petitioner has any grievance he can move an application in the Regular Suit and claim possession over the shop in question. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been dis- possessed from the shop in question otherwise than in due course of law and, therefore, he is entitled for restoration of the possession. 11. In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shettyv. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that he has been dis- possessed from the shop in question otherwise than in due course of law and, therefore, he is entitled for restoration of the possession. 11. In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shettyv. International Airport Authority of India,reported in (1979) 3 SCR 1014 , it has been observed that "it is unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the Rule of law, the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the Rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. " 12. The petitioner has been dis-possessed by the District Administration on the application moved by respondent No. 2. As already stated above, the learned Standing Counsel has failed to point out any law under which the District Administration had the authority to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in question. 13. It has been submitted on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that the authorities may be considered to have taken steps under Sections 11 and 13 of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 11 provides that save as hereinafter provided no person shall let any building except in pursuance of allotment order issued under Section 16. Section 13 provides that where landlord or tenant ceases to occupy a building or part thereof no person shall occupy it in any capacity on his behalf or otherwise than under an order of allotment or release under Section 16 and if a person so purports to occupy it he shall without prejudice to the provision of Section 31 be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant of such building or part. 14. No doubt, Section 11 and Section 13 of the Act provide that no person shall occupy a building to which the provisions of the Act are applicable without an order of allotment. In the instant case, it is not a case of the District Administration that they acted under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. 14. No doubt, Section 11 and Section 13 of the Act provide that no person shall occupy a building to which the provisions of the Act are applicable without an order of allotment. In the instant case, it is not a case of the District Administration that they acted under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. No proceedings have been drawn under the said Sections and, therefore, the Act of the District Authorities in dis- possessing the petitioner cannot be deemed to have been taken under Section 11 of the Act. The case taken by opposite party No. 2 is self-contradictory. In her application moved to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, opposite party No. 2 has contended that her son Jeetu was illiterate and sick and taking advantage of this fact the petitioner took possession of the shop and since after the death of her son Jeetu he is in possession of the shop. It does not appeal to reason that the petitioner would have taken illegal possession of the shop in question since after the death of her son Jeetu in the year 1997 and would have placed his lock on the shop on 20-10- 2000. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed suit for permanent injunction prior to 20-10-2000. 15. It appears that scared by the threat of self-immolation extended by the opposite party No. 2 the District Administration took the action of illegally dispossessing the petitioner from the shop in question. Even under the said circumstance the District Administration had no authority to dis-possess the petitioner from the shop in question otherwise than in due course of law. 16. From the above discussions, it is clear that the petitioner has been dis-possessed by the District Administration from the shop in question without due process of law. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled for restoration of his possession over the shop in question and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to restore the possession of the petitioner in shop No. 3 of House No. 746 Palton Bazar, Sultanpur and to return all the articles which were taken away while evicting him, within ten days from today. Petition allowed. .