JUDGMENT Hon'ble S.S. Chauhan, J. Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.5.1999 passed by the opposite party no.1 declaring the vacancy of the shop in question and the order dated 20.4.2001 passed by the opposite party no.1 and further the order dated 16.9.2002 passed by the opposite party no.1 rejecting the petitioner's review application and the order dated 6.3.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.15, Lucknow in Rent Revision No.22 of 2003. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 16 (1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972') for release of the shop in question, on which a report was submitted by the Rent Control Inspector on 8.1.1999 after inspection to the opposite party no.1 mentioning therein that the shop in question was found closed due to which no inspection can be made. Thereafter, release application was registered fixing 13.5.1999 for further orders. On 19.5.1999 vacancy was notified by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and thereafter he passed an order on 20.4.2001 releasing the shop in question in favour of opposite party no.2. Petitioner filed an application under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 for reviewing the release order dated 20.4.2001. The said application was contested by opposite party no.2 and an affidavit was also filed by opposite party no.3 claiming himself to be the landlord. The review application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.9.2002. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the revisional court and the revisional court proceeded to dismiss the revision of the petitioner vide order dated 6.3.2003. Hence, this petition. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party no.3 was the landlord and through whom the petitioner has acquired the tenancy and the claim of opposite party no.2 was baseless as he was not the landlord and he could not have laid his claim in respect of shop no.1, which was all throughout occupied by him on the basis of the rent receipts issued by the opposite party no.3. He further submits that an affidavit was also filed by opposite party no.3 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as before the revisional court, wherein it was claimed that opposite party no.3 was the real landlord. He also submits that contention of opposite party no.2 that the property was divided according Will is baseless and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the revisional court have proceeded to allow the release application of opposite party no.2 without application of mind by ignoring the relevant evidence on record. It is also submitted that no notice was served upon the petitioner and neither any opportunity was given to him to contest the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner was not the tenant of shop no.1 and when the same was vacated by one Lekh Raj the petitioner stealthily in connivance with opposite party no.3 unlawfully grabbed the shop in question and demolished the partition wall, therefore, the shop in question was rightly released in favour of opposite party no.2 as he wanted the premises for his own use. He has further submitted that the property has devolved on opposite party no.2 and his brother on the basis of the registered Will deed and any unlawful entry in collusion with opposite party no.3 will not confer any right upon the petitioner and neither he can be treated to be tenant in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. The finding recorded by the court below goes to indicate that Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that notice was served upon the petitioner and this finding has been specifically recorded in the order dated 19.5.1999 that in spite of service the petitioner did not pursue the proceedings and neither file any reply and thereafter vacancy was notified. Against the said order, review application was filed under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972, but from the evidence on record, it does not come out as to in what manner the petitioner became the tenant of the shop in question. Against the said order, review application was filed under Section 16(5) of the U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972, but from the evidence on record, it does not come out as to in what manner the petitioner became the tenant of the shop in question. No evidence has been led by him except the fabricated rent receipts, which according to the courts below were not reliable as they were not in the same form, but they were showing different columns and entries. It seems that petitioner in collusion with opposite party no.3 entered into the shop by breaking the partition wall and got certain rent receipts issued through opposite party no.3 and on that basis he is claiming tenancy, which cannot be accepted as there is no valid document to indicate that there was any lawful tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner only stated that he entered into the possession of the shop with the consent of Ram Lal, but there was no allotment order in his favour and, therefore, as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act he will be deemed to be unauthorized tenant and an unauthorized tenant was having no right of hearing, but in spite of that notice was served upon him and a party cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own fraud. 7. The petitioner in the present case has committed fraud by entering into an understanding with the opposite party no.3, who was not concerned with the shop in question. The dispute in regard to the title of opposite party no.3 cannot be accepted as a registered Will deed has been executed in favour of opposite party no.2 on the basis of which he and his brother were the owners of shop no.1. The Will deed was executed on 3.7.1987 by Smt. Nanhkia and the shop in question according to the registered Will deed, fell in the share of opposite party no.2. The rent receipts produced by the petitioner do not tally at all with the earlier rent receipts, which were being issued regularly. 8. Having gone through the entire record, I find that the petitioner has no case and he being an unauthorized occupant has no right to retain the shop in question. 9. Petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.