A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) R. N. Bengal, petitioner, is admittedly the tenant in possession of residential accommodation, house No. 109/276-A, Ram Krishan Nagar, Kanpur since 1990 (Para 2 of the writ petition)called the accommodation, relationship of landlord and tenant existed, landlord had voluntarily and willingly gave possession of the premises in question to the petitioner-tenant on an agreed rent after having charged advance as premium advance rent (Paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition)and said facts have not been disputed by the landlords, contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 7. There is no dispute that the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972. U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act) is applicable to the said accommodation. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid paragraphs have been replied in paras 6 to 9 of the counter-affidavit. landlord in the instant case, therefore, admits that the petitioner was inducted as tenant and allowed to occupy the accommodation as such. ( 3 ) THE emphasis laid by the landlord contesting respondents is that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant being in possession of the accommodation without allotment order in his favour. ( 4 ) IT is, however, apparent that the genesis of the relationship is that of landlord-tenant and the landlord, therefore, by inference admits the modus operandi of the creation of tenancy relationship between the landlord and tenant as well as the ingenuity of methodology adopted by them in letting the building-by hoodwinking the Act and authorities responsible to enforce the provisions of the Act. ( 5 ) IT has come in para 7 of the writ petition, that an application for allotment was got filed by the landlord through one of his relative Sri Indra Pradum Kumar Trivedi. ( 6 ) HERE itself, this Court lakes notice of the fact that the landlords initially inducted tenant in breach of the provisions of the Act and then got initialed proceedings for declaration of vacancy and allotment. Interesting feature being that generally original prospective allottee slips into oblivion and disappears as soon as vacancy is declared. ( 6 ) HERE itself, this Court lakes notice of the fact that the landlords initially inducted tenant in breach of the provisions of the Act and then got initialed proceedings for declaration of vacancy and allotment. Interesting feature being that generally original prospective allottee slips into oblivion and disappears as soon as vacancy is declared. The original prospective allottee who initiates allotment proceedings, thus, unfolds the clandestine arrangement of unauthorised letting and clears the path for the landlord to apply lor release under Section 16 of the Act (in contrast to the release under Section 21 of the Act) and thus, ensured to have initiated proceedings before rent Control and Eviction Officer without there being any opponent who may assist the concerned authority to bring on record the relevant facts and the documents. ( 7 ) THE entire proceedings in such cases are thus nothing but a mock show and a farce completely rendering the entire object of the Act nugatory and instead, its being used as a tool in the hands of unscrupulous landlord. This Court takes judicial notice oi the above facts and considers this modus operandi a large scale Rent Control Scam. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, vacancy was declared by means of the impugned order dated 7. 7. 1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) on the ground that the petilioner was inducted without allotment order, he was unauthorised occupant and thus the premises in question was to be treated vacancy under Section 12 of the Act. ( 9 ) AFTER declaration of vacancy landlord filed release application No. 174 of !999 under Section 16 of the Act dated 14. 7. 1999 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). The petitioner filed objections dated 21. 7. 1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petitoin ). ( 10 ) THE Delegated Authority under Section 16 of the Act/rent Control and Eviction Officer. Kanpur Nagar, by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 11. 11. 1999 allowed the release application whereby the premises in question has been released in favour of the landlord (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). ( 11 ) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer completely ignored his own observation in the order declaring vacancy that petitioner was inducted in the premises as tenant with the permission of the landlord himself. 11. 1999 allowed the release application whereby the premises in question has been released in favour of the landlord (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). ( 11 ) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer completely ignored his own observation in the order declaring vacancy that petitioner was inducted in the premises as tenant with the permission of the landlord himself. ( 12 ) AFTER release order was passed, tenant-petitioner filed a review application under Section 16 (5) of the Act. which was rejected and thereafter he filed revision under Section 18 of the Act which has also been dismissed vide order dated 1. 12. 1999 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition ). Hence the present petition. ( 13 ) BY means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugne the two orders of release dated 11. 11. 1999 and the order dated 1. 12. 1999 (Annexures-5 and 8 to the writ petition) and hence, the petitioner has paid Court fee required for two writ petitions. ( 14 ) IN view of the decision in the case of Jagdish v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. 2002 (1) AWC 766 : 2002 (1) ARC 327, paras 13 and 15 (A. K. Yog, J.), the release order cannot be sustained. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no option but to consider the allotment application/s since the landlord has disentitled himself by knowingly and deliberately having breached the provisions of the Act from maintaining the release application under Section 16 of the Act. ( 15 ) THE release order dated II. 11. 1999 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) is, accordingly, set aside. As far as the impugned order declaring vacancy dated 7. 7. 1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) is concerned, I find no illegality since it is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner occupied the premises in question without allotment order even though the provisions of the said Act were applicable to the said accommodation in question. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis upon the word ordinarily and submitted that the said expression itself shows that an applicant for allotment like the petitioner is not excluded from being considered. ( 16 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis upon the word ordinarily and submitted that the said expression itself shows that an applicant for allotment like the petitioner is not excluded from being considered. He further submitted that Clause (d) of Rule 10 (5) of the rules, however, permits consideration of allotment application of an applicant for allotment like the petitioner, who occupies a building governed by the provisions of the Act with the consent of the landlord. ( 17 ) FOR ready reference, relevant extract of Rule 10 (5) (d) is reproduced below : rule 10 (5) (d) (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) For accommodating a person who has entered into unauthorised occupation of the building or any part thereof without the written consent to the landlord. ( 18 ) I am in agreement with the submission on the point made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 19 ) IT may be noted that in the decision in the case of Jagdish (supra), and the case of Rafat ahmad Jamal Alvi v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and Ors. 2002 (2) AWC 893 : 2002 (1) ARC 410, this Court had no occasion to deal with the right of an applicant for allotment under Rule 10 (5) (d) of the Rules. ( 20 ) IN the aforesaid decisions, it Is nowhere held that the applicant for allotment (like the petitioner) cannot maintain his allotment application or the same will not be considered by the delegated Authority/rent Control and Eviction Officer. ( 20 ) IN the aforesaid decisions, it Is nowhere held that the applicant for allotment (like the petitioner) cannot maintain his allotment application or the same will not be considered by the delegated Authority/rent Control and Eviction Officer. I support of his contention, he also referred to the case of R. K. Parasher v. Dinesh Kumar and others, 2000 (2) AWC 1478 (SC) : 2000 (1) ARC 557 (SC ). ( 21 ) IN view of the above. 1 find no good ground for interfering with the order of declaring vacancy dated 7. 7. 1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ). ( 22 ) THE order of release dated 11. 11. 1999 having been quashed, the concerned Rent Control and eviction Officer respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the allotment applications including that of the petitioner if already filed or as may now be filed by the petitioner and others after vacancy is notified afresh in accordance with directions given by this Court in case of Jagdish (supra ). ( 23 ) WRIT petition stands partly allowed as far as quashing of the release order is concerned. Petition fails with regard to the relief seeking quashing of the order declaring vacancy. ( 24 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. .