Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel the parties and perused the record.

2. The petitioner claims himself to be tenant of house, F-48, Shanti Nagar, Kanpur Nagar since 1975 without there being any allotment order. It appears that respondent No. 2 moved an application for declaration of vacancy and for allotment on the ground that petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. Objections were filed by the petitioner and he also filed certain rent receipts.

3. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 21.2.2005 held that petitioner occupied the property in 1975 and that there is no allotment order in his favour. The property was released in favour of the landlord vide order dated 28.12.2005. Revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by order dated 10.4.2009 by the revisional Court.

4. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that even if finding of the Prescribed Authority is upheld that petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and he occupied the property in 1975, even then the proceedings were not maintainable after 21 years and were barred by period of limitation. It is on these grounds that this petition has been filed. No other point has been argued.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon three judgments of this Court. First decision relied on by the counsel is Munna Lal Agrawal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City Magistrate, Mathura and others, 2005(1) ARC 144, in which three shops in dispute were let out without allotment order, hence the Prescribed Authority declared the vacancy. Court held that proceedings for release initiated by the landlord after reasonable period of time suffer from vice of limitation. The Full Bench decision in Nootan Kumar v. A.D.J., 1994 ALJ 999 (FB), was in operation at that time. It may be pointed out at this stage that judgment in Nootan Kumar’s case (supra) has been set aside by the Apex Court in 2005(2) ARC 665. The Court in paragraph No. 9 of the judgment, has held that after reversal of the Full Bench judgment by the Supreme Court, entire scenario has changed and now agreement is binding between the landlord and tenant and landlord can file suit for eviction on the grounds mentioned under Section 20(2) of the Act and also release application under Section 21 of the Act on the ground of bona fide need.

6. In the second decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner Rajdhari v. Smt. Ranjana Gupta and another, 2006(3) ADJ 409, eviction of the tenant was also sought on the ground of vacancy and it was argued that limitation of 12 years will have to be read. Proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupant were initiated after 21 years from the date of unauthorised occupation and it was held that proceedings for eviction on the ground of vacancy after such period is not maintainable and liberty was given to the landlady to seek eviction on the grounds available to her in law.

7. Last case cited by the counsel for the petitioner is Anil Kumar Dixit v. Maya Tripathi and another, 2006(1) ADJ 264. In that case also building was let out without allotment order and it was held that it may be deemed to be vacant and open to allotment as agreement of letting is not binding upon Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In paragraph Nos. 5 and 7 of this decision, it was held that in view of Sections 12 and 16 of the Act, there was no limitation for initiating proceedings but application is to be filed within a reasonable period of time.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that finding of the Prescribed Authority that there was vacancy while allowing the release application, has been confirmed by the revisional Court in Rent Revision No. 3 of 2006, Chandra Mohan Sama v. Banwari Lal and others.

9. It may be noted here that aforesaid revision was allegedly dismissed ex parte vide judgment and order dated 10.4.2009 and the petitioner was moved application dated 15.5.2009 for setting aside and recall of the order dated 10.4.2009 and restoring the revision to its o