R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20th July, 1982 by which the revision filed by petitioner under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been dismissed. Facts giving rise to this petition are that an application was made by one Kumari Nirmal Sharma for allotment of the house in dispute -saying that the same is lying vacant. Rent Control Inspector was directed to enquire into and submit a report. The report of the Inspector was that the petitioner Imamuddin is occupying the accommodation and the same is not vacant. This report was however, disputed by respondent No. 3 Smt. Sultana Begum and she also applied for allotment. On the basis of evidence on record, it was found that the petitioner occupied the accommodation in dispute in 1979 and he was not lawfully tenant of the accommodation in dispute. On this findings the accommodation was allotted in favour of Smt. Sultana Begum vide order dated 7th August, 1981 passed by D.S.O. Delegated Authority Meerut. Petitioner filed revision against this order, which has been dismissed vide order dated 20th July, 1982, which has been challenged in the present petition. I have heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the orders passed by the two authorities below do not suffer from any error of law. The finding that petitioner came in possession of the accommodation in dispute without any allotment order and cannot be a tenant for the purpose of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Rent Control Officer was free to allot the accommodation in favour of respondent No. 3 and can lawfully ignore the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner could not produce any rent receipt prior to year 1980. It clearly establish that his possession was very recent and cannot come in way of the Rent Control Authority in passing order of allotment. In my opinion, the house in dispute was thus rightly declared to be vacant and had been correctly allotted in favour of the respondent No. 3. The orders passed by the two authorities - -below do not suffer from any error of law. The petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
(2.) THE interim order dated 30th July, 1982 is vacated. There will be no order as to cost.;