JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Govind Saran, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri B.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no. 6. 2. It appears that proceedings were initiated under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1971") against Sri Ram Sewak Prasad, father-in-law of petitioner for realization of arrears of rent of Rs. 22,856/- but during course of the matter, Estate Officer vide order dated 31.10.2008 has found that premises was in possession of Sri Brijesh Shahi, who has paid rent. In the circumstances, it did not find any justification to pass any order for either recovery of any amount of rent and damages from petitioner or for ejectment of petitioner from accommodation in question and instead has simply passed order of allotment of accommodation in question in favour of Sri Brijesh Shahi. Petitioner's appeal thereagainst has also been rejected vide judgment dated 27.10.2009. 3. Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that no such power has been conferred upon Estate Officer under any of the provision of Act, 1971. 4. Sri Govind Saran, Advocate appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3, despite repeated query could not show any provision under which such order of making allotment in favour of a third person can be passed and admittedly he could not dispute that order in question is not within the ambit of Section 7 of Act, 1971. 5. In view thereof, I have no manner of doubt that the impugned orders are patently without jurisdiction and the same cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.10.2008 and 27.10.2009 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is also entitled to costs, which I quantify to Rs. 5000/-.