JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri K.K. Nirkhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S.P. Gupta has appeared for respondent No.3. 2. The dispute is regarding part of house No.5/167, Purana Kanpur Nagar which consists of two rooms. The said premises has been declared to be vacant vide order dated 16.7.2010 and has been ordered to be released on 28.12.2010 in favour of the respondent No.3 landlady. The revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid orders has been dismissed on 14.4.2014. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of vacancy is bad in law for the reason that petitioner has inherited the tenancy from his father Ram Nath, who had been occupying the premises in dispute as tenant since 1966. 5. The courts below have found as of fact that petitioner never inherited the tenancy and that he is occupying it without the consent of the landlord and the order of allotment and as such he is unauthorised occupant. 6. I have gone through the order dated 16.7.2010 declaring the vacancy and find that no evidence whatsoever was adduced by the petitioner to establish that his father Ram Nath was occupying it as tenant since 1967. There is no evidence on record which may prove the occupany of the petitioner over the premises in dispute before 1995. 7. It appears to be correct that the petitioner came to occupy the premises in dispute once the previous tenant Ashok Singh vacated the same. 8. In view of above, I am of the view that there is no error or illegality on part of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in declaring the premises in dispute to be vacant under Section 12 of the Act. 9. As far as the order of release is concerned, it has been passed on the consideration of the requirement of the landlady respondent No.3. The unauthorised occupant or a prospective allottee has no say in the matter of release and therefore, if the courts below have found the need of the landlady to be genuine and had directed for the release of the premises, no exception to it can be taken in law. 10. The unauthorised occupant or a prospective allottee has no say in the matter of release and therefore, if the courts below have found the need of the landlady to be genuine and had directed for the release of the premises, no exception to it can be taken in law. 10. In the end counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be allowed some reasonable time to shift his goods from the premises in dispute. 11. Sri S.P. Gupta, counsel for the respondent No.3 has no objection if a short time is allowed to the petitioner for vacating the same. 12. In view of above, petitioner is allowed three months time to vacate the premises in dispute provided he gives an undertaking on the affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within a period of two weeks from today that he will vacate and handover peaceful possession of the same to the landlady respondent No.3 within the aforesaid period. 13. The writ petition has no merit and as such is dismissed.