J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan counsel for the petitioners and also Sri Veer Singh and Sri Dinesh Tiwari counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.5.97 whereby the accommodation in question has been released in favour of the landlords after declaration of vacancy.
(3.) It is not disputed that the petitioners came to occupy the building in question in the year 1986 without any order of allotment. The only question which arose for determination before the Courts below was whether the building at the time of letting was governed by the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 or not. The settled position of law, as it stands after the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nootan's Kumar case, 1993 (2) ARC 204, is that after the enforcement of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. any letting made in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is Illegal and vo|d and the tenanted accommodation would be deemed to be vacant and open for allotment or release as the case may be. It was further held in the aforesaid decision that such a contract of tenancy entered into between landlord and tenant is not enforceable in law, being illegal and void.;