Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 10.5.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Moradabad in P.A. case no. 8 of 2005 as well as revisional order dated 24.9.2010, whereby application moved by the petitioner for impleadment as a party, has been rejected. 3. Landlord respondent no. 1-Jiaunnabi moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the shop under tenancy of respondent no. 2- Abdul Khaliq, which was registered as P.A. case no. 8 of 2005. 4. In aforesaid P.A. case no. 8 of 2005, the petitioner moved an application for impleading himself as a party, inter alia that he is tenant of the shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month; that rent receipts for the months of May and June 2005 were issued to him by the landlord under his signatures; that earlier tenant Abdul Khaliq (respondent no. 2) on compromise with the landlord, had vacated the shop in the month of April, 2005 after accepting rupees one lac towards cost of fixtures and furniture; that petitioner has paid rupees one lac, thirty thousands towards payment of fixtures and furniture to the landlord pursuant to agreement entered between them; that as rent for the month of July 2005 onwards was not accepted, the same was sent to the landlord through postal money order; that respondent no. 2-Abdul Khaliq has nothing to do with the matter and in fact the petitioner is the tenant of the shop in dispute. 5. Objection to the aforesaid application was filed by the landlord respondent no. 1 denying the averments of the impleadment application and stating that rent receipts, memorandum of tenancy etc. submitted by the petitioner are all Farzi and fabricated documents. 6. The Prescribed authority by the impugned order dated 10.5.2007 rejected the petitioner's application for imleadment holding that he is neither a necessary party to the proceedings nor in his absence, disposal of the suit would be adversely affected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Rent Revision No. 37 of 2007 which too has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rampur by impugned order dated 24.9.2010 upholding the order of the Prescribed Authority. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Rent Revision No. 37 of 2007 which too has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rampur by impugned order dated 24.9.2010 upholding the order of the Prescribed Authority. 7. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have failed to consider the important fact that petitioner is tenant after paying Rs. 1.30 lacs as premium regarding which landlord has made a memorandum in his favour. 8. There is prohibition under the Act for any kind of premium to be given by the tenant to landlord for taking accommodation on rent. The Act further provides that no premises shall be given on rent without any allotment order and further that at the time of delivery of possession, if anyone is found in possession, he shall also be dispossessed under section 23 of the Act for putting the landlord into possession. 9. The impleadment application moved by the petitioner appears to have rightly been rejected by the courts below in the facts and circumstances of the case. No one can be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. 10. The petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.