JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against a vacancy order dated 27.5.1996. The connected petition No. 19162 of 1997 is directed against the release order granted in favour of the respondent-landlord but its fate would depend upon the decision of the present case. 3. The dispute relates to a shop on the ground floor of a building No. 128/91, Block B, Kidwai Nagar in Kanpur of which the respondents are the owners in possession. The respondents instituted a SCC suit No. 39 of 1988 against the petitioner under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) treating him to be a statutory tenant of the disputed shop from 1979 @ Rs.90/- per month for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent from 1.4.1983 to 18.1.1988 and material alternation. The petitioner filed written statement denying default and further alleging that he was inducted by the father of the respondents as an unauthorized occupant in 1979 without an order of allotment passed under the Act and therefore he could not be evicted under the Act. The suit was subsequently dismissed also on the ground that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant. 4. However, after the pleadings were exchanged by the parties, one Vasudev filed an application for allotment of the disputed shop on 10.6.1994 alleging vacancy as it was occupied by the petitioner without an order of allotment. After obtaining a report of the Inspector, the Rent Controller issued notice to both the parties, who appeared and filed their respective pleadings and evidence. The Rent Controller rejected the case of the petitioner that he was a tenant since 1975 and went on to hold that he was inducted as a tenant in 1979 without an allotment order in violation of Sections 11, 13, 14, 16, 31, 33 etc. of the Act and declared it to be vacant by the impugned order. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the landlord himself had inducted him as tenant, thus could not reap the benefit of his own fault. of the Act and declared it to be vacant by the impugned order. 5. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the landlord himself had inducted him as tenant, thus could not reap the benefit of his own fault. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that since no proceedings for declaration of vacancy or release having been initiated within a period of 12 years, the proceedings initiated on the basis of allotment application dated 10.6.1994 were not maintainable as it was beyond a reasonable time. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Mansa Ram v. S.P. Rathore and others, 1984 ARC 17 and the subsequent decisions of this Court following it in the case of Smt. Brij Bala Jain v. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and others, 1996 (2) ARC 474; Anil Kumar Dixit v. Maya Tripathi and another, 2006 (1) ARC 377 and the decision in Rajeev Maurya v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer and others, 2008 (3) ARC 359. 6. In Mansaram’s case it was held that twelve year was a reasonable time to initiate vacancy proceedings against an unauthorized occupant and the other decision merely followed it. Let us consider, what was the precise issue before the Apex Court in the case of Mansa Ram (Supra). That was a case under Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. Under the said Order, the landlord was obliged to intimate vacancy to the Collector within seven days under Clause 21 (1) and was restrained from letting out the premises except in accordance with an order of the Collector under Clause 23. However, under Clause 23 (1) the Collector was obliged to pass an order for allotment within 15 days failing which the landlord was entitled to let it out under sub clause (2) and the tenancy was recognized under Sub clause (2) of Clause 22. Thus, under the aforesaid order, though the right of landlord was curtailed but yet he had the right to let out the premises to a person of his choice on the non-allotment within 15 days of the intimation and there was no complete bar under the said Order. In this background, it was examining whether an application for eviction was maintainable after 22 years. In this background, it was examining whether an application for eviction was maintainable after 22 years. The Court in these circumstances, and rightly so, held that the power should be exercised within a reasonable time and the applicability of Clause 23 (2) should have been examined. However, there is a complete bar upon any person to occupy any premises covered by the Act as a tenant in Section 11 which reads as under : “11. Prohibition of letting without allotment order - Save as herein-after provided, no person shall let any buildings except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under Section 16.” 7. A Full Bench of our Court in Nootan Kumar v. Additional District Judge, 1993 (20) ARC 204 (FB), held that occupation by a tenant through an agreement dehors the provisions of the Act and would be void and no eviction at the behest of the landlord could be passed against such tenant. But this Full Bench was overruled by the Apex Court in Nutan Kumar v. II Additional District Judge, 2002 (8) SCC 31 , holding that in view of Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 31 of the Act, the tenant would be treated to be an unauthorized occupant and in view of Section 12 the premises would be deemed vacant and available for allotment or release. A Division Bench of our Court in Ajay Pal Singh v. District Judge, Meerut, 2008(5) ADJ 538 (DB), was called upon to answer the following questions referred to it by a learned Single Judge in view of contrary decisions by two learned Judges of this Court : “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 1971) 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? 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?” 8. After considering large number of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, it answered the questions in para 26 of the report in the following manner : 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 1971 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 judgements 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 an 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 1971. (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. (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 landlord as void, In view of the answer given to question No. 1, referred to above.” 9. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the landlord was estopped from claiming release of the building cannot be accepted. 10. So far as the question of delay is concerned, it can be examined from two angles. As already noted above, the landlord had filed suit for eviction in 1988 treating the petitioner to be a statutory tenant but it was the petitioner himself who claimed and obtained the benefit of being an unauthorized occupant and therefore the landlord had no other option but to file the release application on the ground of deemed vacancy and thus application was filed within a reasonable time in 1994, which was much before the expiry of twelve years. Secondly, the proceedings for declaration of vacancy were not started by the landlord but by one Vasudeo and only when notices were issued by the Rent Controller to the petitioner that the release application was filed and therefore applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Ajay Pal’s case (Supra) the right of the landlord to get it released, was unfettered. 11. Thus examined from any angle, none of the arguments advanced merits acceptance. 12. No other point has been urged. 13. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. —————