JUDGMENT Satyendra Singh Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties. 2. This review petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by this Court. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner is that the finding recorded by this Court to the effect that the tenancy created in contravention of the provisions of the Act would be illegal as the shop in question was neither released nor allotted through proper procedure. In this regard, learned counsel for the review-petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of Nutan Kumar and others vs. 2nd Additional District Judge and others AIR 2002 SC 3456 . 4. The question raised in the aforesaid case was as to whether the agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void, and whether the said agreement is enforceable in law and a decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof. 5. It was held in the aforesaid case that such lease would not be void and the tenant would be treated as trespasser and the said agreement is enforceable in law and a decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in fovour of the landlord on the basis thereof. 6. Taking the aforesaid view into consideration, the review petition deserves to be allowed to the extent that the finding recorded in the order dated 22.11.2012 to the effect that the words "the tenancy was created, but the said creation of tenancy appears, prima facie, against the provisions of the Act" will be substituted by the words "but the said creation of tenancy would be enforceable under law and the tenant would be treated as trespasser only. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.