Ravi S. Dhawan, J. - (1.) In the city of Mathura is an accommodation bearing No. 448 Balkhandi, the landlord of the premises sought release of the accommodation. There were various prospective allottees vying for the accommodation to be become statutory tenants. Ashok Kumar Goel the petitioner had already settled himself in this accommodation but could not show the origin of his occupancy either by tacit consent or by an allotment order. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer while considering the release application of the landlord remarked upon the occupation of Ashok Kumar Goel as being unauthorised who bad entered into the premises, in effect, an action which could be certified as house breaking. The premises were released to the landlord by an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 7th February 1987.
(2.) The aforesaid Ashok Kumar Goel sought a review of this order by an application under Sub-section (5) of Section 16 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. On being questioned by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to show the origin of occupancy, the aforesaid Ashok Kumar Goel was unsuccessful and on more than one occasion the Rent Control and Eviction Officer certified that the petitioner had entered the premises unauthorisedly by breaking the locks of the accommodation. The contention of the petitioner is that he had occupied the accommodation as a tenant, was not accepted. Firstly the landlord had not accepted the petitioner as a tenant at any stage and secondly the petitioner could not prove that there existed the contract of tenancy. The petitioner attempted to claim authorised occupation under Section 14 of the Act but was unsuccessful and that argument was repelled also.
(3.) Having been certified as an unauthorised occupant and having entered the premises by an action of house breaking the petitioner moved the District Judge in revision with the grievance that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer releasing the premises to the landlord was illegal. The learned District Judge, Mathura declined to interfere in the revision filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is before this Court to impugn the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by which the premises were released to the landlord and subsequently the order of the District Judge, Mathura by which he declined to interfere in the revision of the petitioner. Upon facts which are on record the petitioner, in fact, is a trespasser. He has not been able to satisfy any of the authorities that he entered the accommodation validly and bona fide so as to give the benefit of an authorised occupant. Equity is against the petitioner and he cannot invoke law in his favour. None of the orders which have been impugned can be assailed by a petition under Article 226 of the constitution.;