Jagdish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) HEARD petitioner's Counsel Shri A.K. Gaur and Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the caveator -respondent. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.8.1998 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur whereby the premises in question has been declared vacant on the ground of the same being in un -authorised occupation of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is in occupation of the building in question on the basis of order of allotment. Learned Counsel for the caveator invited the attention of the Court to the own statement of the petitioner made before the Rent Control Inspector that he is in occupation of the building in question for the last about four years. It was not the case of the petitioner before the Rent Control Officer nor it has been claimed in the writ petition here that the petitioner has been in occupation of the accommodation in question since 1973, the commencement of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It has already been held by me in the case of Km. Raj Mishra and another v. Additional District fudge, Agra and others, 1998 (2) ARC 42, that after the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nutan Kumar's case : 1993 (22) ALR 437, the settled position of the law is that after the enforcement of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, any letting made in contravention of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act is illegal and void and the tenanted accommodation would be deemed to be vacant and open for allotment or release, as the case may be. Any contract of tenancy entered into between the landlord and the tenant after the enforcement of the Act is void and does not take away the right of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to treat the building as vacant and accordingly an order of allotment or release can legally be passed in respect of such a building. In the present case as has been pointed out above, it was the own admission of the petitioner before the authority below that he has been in occupation of the disputed property only for the last about four years. In the writ petition there is no averment contrary to this. It would thus be seen that even as per the own case of the petitioner he came in occupation of the disputed shop as a tenant after the enforcement of the Act without an order of allotment in his favour with the result that under law vacancy stood created.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that in the present case no order of allotment was necessary as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. It is suffice to mention here that no such case was either raised by the petitioner before the authority below nor it has been so pleaded in the present writ petition. In the statement given before the Court below, the petitioner admitted himself that disputed shop was an old construction. The scheme of the Act indicates that the Act applies to every building unless by the operation the Act is exempted under the provisions of Section 2 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then next argued that in the present case there has been no compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 8 and without compliance thereof no order of vacancy could be made. It is well -settled law that this Court in its writ jurisdiction does not sit to correct each and every order which may be bad in law and it comes to help only those who approach this Court with clean hands. When in law the status of the petitioner is no more than that of an 'un -authorised occupant' he possesses no right enforceable in law. It is well -settled law that the person who approaches this Court in writ jurisdiction must satisfy the Court that he has a valuable right in himself which is enforceable in law and on account of infringement of the same a great injustice has been caused to him. When the petitioner has failed to qualify the above test, this Court will not come to his rescue in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It may also be mentioned here that the accommodation in question has already been released in favour of the landlord -respondent. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner requested that a reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioner to make his own alternative arrangement and to handover possession of the premises in question to the landlord. Shri Rajesh Tandon, on other hand, opposed this prayer on the ground that the petitioner has been held to be an un -authorised occupant and therefore, is not entitled to remain in occupation thereof even for a single day. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is allowed time upto 31.12.1999 to vacate the shop in question and handover its possession to the landlord -respondent subject to his filing an undertaking on affidavit before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer within three weeks from today to the effect that he shall handover the vacant possession of the shop in question to the landlord -respondent on or before 31.12.1999 without inducting any third person therein. For a period of three weeks from today the eviction of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned release order shall remain stayed. If the required undertaking is not filed, it shall be open for the landlord -respondent to get the release order enforced forthwith. However, if the required undertaking is filed within the aforesaid period and respected the petitioner's dispossession from the premises in question shall remain suspended upto 31.12.1999. With the above concession given to the petitioner for delivery of possession of the disputed property, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. ;