JUDGMENT By the Court.—Following questions have been referred by the Hon’ble Single Judge to the Larger Bench under his judgment and order dated 9.9.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 37767 of 2003 : “(1) Whether in case a landlord lets a building/accommodation covered under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) to a person without allotment order, and the building/accommodation is declared vacant on account of such letting, the landlord is deprived of seeking release of such building/accommodation under Section 16(1)(b) of the said Act? (2) Whether the release application filed by such a landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of the said Act is liable to be ignored, and the release order passed on such application is void and cannot be given effect to ? (3) Whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can deprive such a landlord of his right to seek release of the aforesaid building/accommodation under Section 16(1)(b) by issuing declaration declaring the release order in favour of such a landlord as void, and directing the District Magistrate/Delegated Authority not to give effect to such release order ? 2. We have heard Counsel for the parties. 3. Facts giving rise to the present reference, as noticed in the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge are being restated in short. 4. Petitioner (A) was inducted as an unauthorized occupant into the premises covered by Act No. XIII of 1972 [U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, amended from time to time] (hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Act’) in question in August, 1989 by the landlord (Ms. M) respondent No. 3. Such unauthorized occupation of the premises resulted in an order being passed by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority, Meerut declaring deemed vacancy under Section 12(4) of 1972 Act. It is also noticed that petitioner (A) had also acquired a house in Mohalla Chowk in the same city of Meerut and therefore there was a deemed vacancy in view of Section 12(3) of 1972 Act also. 5. The landlord (Ms. M) made an application for release of the said occupation. The application was allowed under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority vide order dated 23.7.2003. 6. 5. The landlord (Ms. M) made an application for release of the said occupation. The application was allowed under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority vide order dated 23.7.2003. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order petitioner (A) filed a revision under Section 18 of the 1972 Act, being Civil Revision No. 51 of 2003. The revision was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Meerut vide order dated 7.8.2003 on the ground that the petitioner (A) has no locus standi to question the release order on any ground whatsoever. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 37767 of 2003 by the petitioner (A). The Hon’ble Single Judge in his order has found that the order declaring the premises to be deemed to be vacant under Section 12(4) of 1972 Act was in accordance with law and has affirmed the findings recorded by the Court below in that regard. 7. It was contended before the Hon’ble Single Judge that since the landlord (Ms. M) had inducted the petitioner (A) as an unauthorized tenant in the premises in question, Ms. M, therefore, rendered herself ineligible for making an application for release of the occupation in her favour under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the order releasing the occupation in favour of landlord (Ms. M) was illegal. In support of the said contention petitioner (A) relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Ram Nath Sehgal, which in turn relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Jagdish v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2002 AII CJ 462 wherein it was held as follows : “3. The emphasis laid by the landlord/contesting respondents is that the petitioner is an ‘unauthorized occupant’ being in possession of the accommodation without allotment order in his favour. 14. In view of the decision in the case of Jagdish v. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2002(46) ALR 677 : 2002 AII CJ 462 (A.K. Yog, J.), the release order cannot be sustained. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has ho option but to consider the allotment applications 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.” 8. On behalf of the landlord (Ms. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has ho option but to consider the allotment applications 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.” 8. On behalf of the landlord (Ms. M) the contention so raised was opposed on the ground that the 1972 Act has not debarred the landlord, who had earlier inducted a person as an unauthorized occupant in the premises, from seeking release of the same premises in his favour under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act once a deemed vacancy has been declared under Section 12(4). Therefore it is always open to the landlord to make an application even in cases where an unauthorized occupant has been earlier inducted by him and in support thereof reference had been made to the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Kandhaiya Lal v. Rent Control Officer/Upper Nagar Magistrate-Ill, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2002(1) ARC 551 wherein the Court found that a prospective allottee and an unauthorized occupant has got no right to intervene in the proceedings initiated for release of the occupation under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act by the landlord. The relevant portion of the judgment in the case of Kandhaiya Lal, as has been quoted by the Hon’ble Single Judge in his judgment, reads as follows : “4. The aforesaid findings recorded by the respondent No. 1 is quite correct and does not suffer from any error of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show from the material on the record that the petitioner was a lawful occupant of the shop in dispute. The occupation of the petitioner was in contravention to the provisions of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Therefore, taking into consideration provisions of Section 12 of the Act, rightly held that the shop in dispute was deemed vacant. 5. So far as the release of the shop in dispute is concerned it is well settled in law that in the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ District Magistrate, the prospective allottee or an unauthorized occupant has got no right to intervene in the same. 5. So far as the release of the shop in dispute is concerned it is well settled in law that in the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ District Magistrate, the prospective allottee or an unauthorized occupant has got no right to intervene in the same. The petitioner, who is unauthorized occupant of the shop in dispute, had no right to object to release of the shop in dispute in favour of the landlord.” 9. In view of the aforesaid two judgments, the Hon’ble Single Judge has noticed that there was an apparent conflict with regard to right of the landlord, who had inducted an unauthorized occupant in the premises, to make an application under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act for release of the occupation as well as with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to deprive such a landlord from making a release application under Section 16(1)(b) because of his past conduct. 10. For the purposes of appreciating the question, which has been referred to the larger Bench, it would be worthwhile to refer to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nootan Kumar v. Additional District Judge, 1993(2) ARC 204 (FB) which has since been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment reported in (2002) 8 SCC 31 , Nutan Kumar v. llnd Additional District Judge and others. 11. The Full Bench of this Court held that any agreement between the landlord and the tenant for letting the occupation of the building in contravention of the provisions of the 1972 Act would be void. Such an agreement is unenforceable in the eyes of law and no degree for ejectment of such unauthorized occupant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, having regard to the provision of Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 31 of 1972 Act, while overruling the Full Bench Judgment held that the contract between the unauthorized occupant (tenant) and the landlord would be binding between the parties and would be enforced between the parties themselves. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, having regard to the provision of Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 31 of 1972 Act, while overruling the Full Bench Judgment held that the contract between the unauthorized occupant (tenant) and the landlord would be binding between the parties and would be enforced between the parties themselves. However, such an agreement, being hit by Section 11 read with Section 13 of 1972 Act, will have the effect of declaring the tenant as an unauthorized occupant and therefore the premises would be deemed to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act and available for release/allotment. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nanakram v. Kundalrai, (1986) 3 SCC 83 still holds field. The relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as follows : “12. As Nanakram case was decided by three Hon’ble Judges of this Court, it would also be binding on us. We are therefore not going into the question of correctness or otherwise of such a view. We may however mention that the impugned judgment dated 20-5-1993 of the Full Bench, is not correct for another reason also. Section 13 of the said Act specifically provides that a person who occupies, without an allotment order in his favour, shall be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant of such premises. As he is in unauthorized occupation he is like a trespasser. A suit for ejectment of a trespasser to get back possession from a trespasser could always be filed. Such a suit would not be on the contract/agreement between the parties and would thus not be hit by principles of public policy also. 13. In this view of the matter the decision of the Full Bench dated 20-5-1993 cannot be sustained and is set aside. It is held that the law, as laid down in Nanakram case still holds the field. Thus unless the statute specifically provides that a contract contrary to the provisions of the statute would be void the contract would remain binding between the parties and could be enforced between the’parties themselves. Consequently the judgment dated 20-9-1993 dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The matter is sent back to the High Court for deciding the writ petition in accordance with law.” 13. Consequently the judgment dated 20-9-1993 dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The matter is sent back to the High Court for deciding the writ petition in accordance with law.” 13. In view of the aforesaid legal position, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it will be seen that the legislature, despite being aware of induction of a person by the landlord contrary to the provisions of the Act into the premises, has not chosen to declare such an agreement as void. The only consequence provided is under Section 12 of 1972 Act which declares that a premises, which has been given in possession to a person contrary to the provisions of the Act, would be deemed to be vacant resulting in following consequences : (a) the person inducted would be deemed to be an unauthorized occupant within the meaning of Section 13 of 1972 Act, and (b) the premises in his possession as such would be deemed to be vacant for the purpose of Rent Control Act. 14. In any deemed vacancy the landlord has been conferred a right under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act to make an application for release of the occupation in his favour and at that stage of proceedings it is settled law that the tenant or the prospective allottee has no right to be heard nor he has a locus to challenge the release order by way of revision under Section 18 of the Act. Reference in that regard may be had to the judgments in the cases of Swaroop Narain Srivastava v. IVth Additional District Judge, (1994) 5 SCC 504 ; Smt. Krishna Rani v. District Judge, Dehradun, 1990 AWC 894; Baboo Mohd. Yaqoob v. R.C. & E.O., 1987 (2) ARC 84; Leelawanti (Smt.) and another v. Incharge District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2001(2) ARC 110; Talib Hasan v. 1st Additional District Judge, 1986(1) ARC 1 (FB); Vijay Kumar Sonkar v. Incharge District Judge and others, 1995(2) ARC 1; Dev Raj Singh Chauhan v. 1st Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad and others, 1997 (1) ARC 590. 15. However, an issue has arisen as to whether by conduct the landlord, who inducts an unauthorized occupant, disentitles himself from making a release application under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act inasmuch as no person should be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. 15. However, an issue has arisen as to whether by conduct the landlord, who inducts an unauthorized occupant, disentitles himself from making a release application under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act inasmuch as no person should be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. The aforesaid issue qua the legal right of the landlord to make an application under Section 16(1)(b) of 1972 Act and its consideration by the competent authority, after a vacancy has been declared under Section 12(4), has to be examined with reference to the statutory provisions which regulate the proceedings as contained in Act No. XIII of 1972. 16. Section 16 of 1972 Act talks both of allotment and release of a premises which is available for the purpose, including the premises where there is a deemed vacancy under Section 12(4) of 1972 Act. However, Section 16(1)(b) provides that no allotment in respect of a building, covered by an application under Section 16(1)(b), shall be made unless such application is rejected. It is with reference to the aforesaid provisions that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Talib Hasan (supra) held that a prospective allottee comes into picture only after the disposal of the landlord’s application for release under Section 16(1)(b) and only if the same is rejected. 17. So far as the application made by the landlord for release of the accommodation is concerned, the same has to be considered with reference to the bona fide need of the landlord and the procedure provided thereto under Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Rules’). Rule 13, which deals with the release of the premises on an application being made by the landlord, reads as follows : “13. Application for release of vacant buildings [Section 16(1)(b)].—(1) Every application for release under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 shall specify the ground or grounds on which the building or part thereof or any land appurtenant thereto is sought to be released. (2) The application or any objection thereto shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (2) The application or any objection thereto shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of Order VI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If there are more than one landlords or alleged tenants, as the case may be, the application may be signed by one of them, but in any such case the co-landlords shall be arrayed as proforma opposite parties. (3) Where the application referred to in sub-rule (1) is made on the ground that the building is required for demolition and new construction the procedure laid down in Rule 17 shall mutatis mutandis be followed. (4) Every application under this rule shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation, and no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application under this rule shall be made unless such application has been rejected.” 18. This statutory right of the landlord under Section 16(1)(b) has not been infringed or diluted in any manner because of the vacancy having been deemed because of an unauthorized occupant having been put in possession of the premises by the landlord. The Act confers a right upon the landlord to make an application for release of the building or part thereof or any land appurtenant thereto, even in respect of premises which are deemed to be vacant under Section 12(4). The authority concerned, however, has been conferred a discretion to allow the application only on certain conditions being proved to exist to his satisfaction. If the landlord in a given case fails to satisfy the authority concerned on any of the aspects, which are necessarily to be examined for allowing the application, the authority may reject the application and thereafter consider the allotment applications made by the prospective allottees. 19. At this stage reference may also be had to Rule 10 of 1972 Rules, which lays down the procedure for allotment of the buildings. For ready reference sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 10 of 1972 Rules, which are relevant for our purposes, are being quoted herein below : “10(5). 19. At this stage reference may also be had to Rule 10 of 1972 Rules, which lays down the procedure for allotment of the buildings. For ready reference sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 10 of 1972 Rules, which are relevant for our purposes, are being quoted herein below : “10(5). A building shall not ordinarily be allotted to the following persons or for the following purposes— (a) A tenant against whom a decree or order has been passed for ejectment on any ground mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of sub­section (1) of Section 3 or under Section 7-B of the old Act or on any ground mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 during a period of two years from the date of such decree or order or any member of his family or any person of whose family he is a member; (b) For residential accommodation of employees of business concerns who are allowed by their employers full reimbursement of house rent paid by them; (c) For residential accommodation of a person already occupying a building governed by the Act or any public premises other than any premises granted to him free of rent in connection with the discharge of any duties of public nature and situated anywhere in the State or any member of the family of such person or any person of whose family he is a member, except where such person will vacate the other building or public premises at the time of allotment; (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. (6) A person who is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b), or who is evicted under Section 21 by virtue of being a tenant referred to in Explanation (1) of Section 21(1) shall not be allotted that or any other residential building and a person who is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the meaning of Section 12(2), shall not be allotted that or any other non-residential building for a period of two years from the date of such eviction or deemed cessation, as the case may be : Provided that— (a) if the District Magistrate is satisfied in a case referred to in Section 12(2) that the admission of partner or new partner is bona fide transaction and not a mere cover for sub-letting, he shall, if any application had been made in that behalf before the admission of such partner or new partner, allot the non-residential building in question afresh to the newly constituted or re­constituted firm; (b) in the case of a residential building under the tenancy of a person who shall be deemed by virtue of Section 12(3) to have ceased to occupy it by reason of his or any member of his family building or otherwise acquiring in a vacant state or getting vacated another residential building in the same local area, whether that other building is built or acquired or got vacated before or after the date of commencement of the Act, if the District Magistrate is satisfied that the two buildings are occupied by the tenant and a member of his family separately, and that they are separate in messing, the District Magistrate may re-allot the residential building deemed to be vacant under Section 12(4) to the said tenant or to the said member of his family, as the case may be; (c) in the case of a residential building under the tenancy of a person who shall be deemed by virtue of the proviso to Section 12(3) to have ceased to occupy it upon the expiration of a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Act by reason of his or any member of his family having built another residential building in the same local area, where that other building was let out at the commencement of the Act and the tenant or the member of his family, as the case may be, has been unsuccessful in spite of his best efforts in securing vacant possession thereof the District Magistrate may postpone the making of allotment order in respect of the building deemed to be vacant under Section 12(4)." 20. It will be seen that Rule 10(5)(d) prohibits allotment of a building in favour of a person, who has entered into an unauthorized occupation of the building or any part thereof without written consent to the landlord and Rule 10(6) prohibits allotment of a building in favour of a person, who is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the meaning of Section 12(1)(b) and Section 12(2) for a period of two years from the date such eviction or cessation, as the case may be. 21. What is noteworthy is that while restrictions have been placed under the 1972 Act and Rules framed thereunder on the rights of the unauthorized occupants qua allotment of the premises covered by the said Act.,As per Rules 10(5) and 10(6) of 1972 Rules no such similar restriction has been placed by the legislature on the right of the landlord, who has inducted unauthorized tenant, so far as his release application under Section 16(1)(b) is concerned. 22. From the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, it is apparently clear that the legislature is aware of the fact that an unauthorized occupant is necessarily inducted into the premises contrary to the provisions of the Act by the landlord himself and despite such facts being in the knowledge of the legislature, it has not placed any restriction on the right of the landlord so far as release of such premises, which are deemed to be vacated under Section 12(4) of 1972 Act is concerned, either under the 1972 Act or Rules framed thereunder. 23. In such circumstances, the intention of the legislature is cleared that the right of the landlord to make an application for release in respect of deemed vacancy covered by Section 12(4) be not hampered or impaired part in any manner only because of his being inducted an unauthorized occupant. No restriction on his right to make an application under Section 16(1)(b) has been provided for and therefore no restriction is required to be provided by the Court in such right of the landlord. 24. No restriction on his right to make an application under Section 16(1)(b) has been provided for and therefore no restriction is required to be provided by the Court in such right of the landlord. 24. The Court may, at this stage, add a word caution, namely all application for release of the accommodation under Section 16(1)(b) can be granted by the authority concerned only if the District Magistrate is satisfied that the building or any part thereof or any land appurtenant thereto is bonafidely required, either in existing form or after demolition and new construction, by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade, calling etc. subject to the restriction placed under other sub-clauses of Section 16. Reference may also be had to the power of review conferred upon the District Magistrate under Section 16(5) to review his order of release and to seek eviction of the persons put in possession thereto on being satisfied that the earlier order was not in accordance with the clauses (a) and (b) of Section 16(1), as the case may be. Section 16(6), however, provides that in case the earlier order of release has been obtained by false or on frivolous allegation, the District Magistrate has the power to impose special cost. 25. Therefore, the bona fides of the landlord for release of the accommodation are necessarily to be pleaded and established to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and in absence thereof no release can be granted. The conduct of the landlord to induct a person through back door into a premises, without there being an order of allotment in violation of Section 16 of 1972 Act, would be a relevant consideration to be considered by the concerned authority while examining the release application. The duration for which such unauthorized occupant has continued, the changed circumstances between induction of unauthorized occupant and release application as well as other material facts are to be taken into consideration by the authority concerned while examining bona fide of the release application made by the landlord. The aforesaid are only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive issue qua consideration of release application. 26. The aforesaid are only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive issue qua consideration of release application. 26. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the application made by the landlord under Section 16(1)(b) for release of an accommodation, which is deemed to be fallen vacant under Section 12(4) because of his having put in occupation an unauthorized occupant, is not hampered or impaired in any manner under the 1972 Act. The application has to be considered on merit in accordance with law by the District Magistrate. Unauthorized occupant/prospective allottee has no right to interfere in the aforesaid proceedings of release, as has been held by successive judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court repeatedly. It is only after the release application is rejected, that a prospective allottee comes into picture and therefore revision against an order of release under Section 18 at the behest of prospective allottee would not be maintainable. The questions referred to this Bench by the Hon’ble Single Judge are, therefore, answered as follows : (a) Landlord is not deprived of his legal right to make a release application in respect of a building, which had been earlier given in possession, by him, to an unauthorized occupant in violation of the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972. (b) The release application made by the landlord cannot be ignored nor the order passed thereon can be termed to be void or of no effect. (c) The High Court in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India need not declare the order made in favour of such a landlord as void, in view of the answer given to question No. 1, referred to above. 27. Reference stands answered accordingly. 28. Let the records be placed before the Hon’ble Single Judge for hearing of all the writ petitions. ————