JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - The applicants Gokulnath and Jogendranath had been convicted for breach of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, No. III of 1947, as amended by Act No. XLIV of 1948, and were sentenced by the Magistrate to certain term of simple imprisonment and also to fine. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Mathura maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence to one of fine alone. 2. The charge against the applicants was that they, as owners of a shop situate in Bindraban, failed to give proper notice to the authorities of the shop having been vacated by the tenant; and they further let out the shop to another tenant without the accomodation having been allotted by the authorities to such tenants. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that by such act the two accused contravened the provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Mathura District Control of Letting of Accommodation Order, 1951, framed and promulgated by the District Magistrate of Mathura under the provisions of Section 7 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act of 1947, as amended by the Act of 1948. 3. It is not disputed that Gokulnath and Jogendranath have been the landlords or owners of the shop in question. The findings of the courts below were, and those findings must for the purposes of this revision be accepted as correct, that the shop had been occupied previously by another tenant and when that tenant vacated the shop, notice of the vacation had not been given by the landlords to the Rent Control Officer; and further that it was Gokulnath alone who had subsequently let out the shop to another tenant without proper allotment having been made by the Rent Control Officer. The question which arises for determination in the present case is whether upon those proved facts the applicants can be held guilty for breach of the provisions contained in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order framed by the District Magistrate of Mathura known as the Mathura District Control of Letting of Accommodation Order, (sic), dated the 12rh of March, 1951, and whether the contravention of those provisions can be punished u/s 8 of the Act. 4. A copy of the aforesaid order dated the 12th of March, 1951, is on the record and is marked Ex. P-6. 4. A copy of the aforesaid order dated the 12th of March, 1951, is on the record and is marked Ex. P-6. The preamble of that Order says that: Notice of this Order shall be given by publication in any one or more of the following manners: (1) By announcement by loud speakers throughout the limits of Municipalities of Mathura, Vrindaban and Kosi Kalan and Town Area Goverdhan; (2) by publication in the local papers; (3) by affixation of copies on the Notice-Boards at Collectorate and other important places. (4) By issuing copies of this Order to the public. 5. Paragraph 4 of that Order, inter alia, says that each landlord shall give information of the falling vacant of any accomodation of which he is the landlord within seven days of the date on which a particular accommodation fell vacant to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura. Paragraph 5 of that Order says that no landlord shall let or occupy or give on lease any accommodation or part thereof of which he is the landlord and which is or has fallen vacant without previous allotment in writing by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, of such accommodation. Paragraph 7 of that Order says that any person who contravenes these provisions shall be punishable on conviction in accordance with Section 8 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, No. III of 1947, as amended by Act No. XLIV of 1948. 6. Now upon the findings arrived at by the two courts below the two applicants would be punishable u/s 8 of the Act for breach of Paragraph 4 of the Order of the District Magistrate passed on the 12th of March, 1951, and Gokulnath applicant alone would be punishable u/s 8 of the same Act for breach of the provisions of Paragraph 5 of the Order aforesaid of the District Magistrate if it was proved that the Order of the District Magistrate passed on the 12th of March, 1951, designated as the Mathura District Control of Letting of Accomodation Order, 1951, had been promulgated and published in any of the manners laid down in that Order. The only proof that was produced on behalf of the prosecution in this case were copies of two reports Exs. The only proof that was produced on behalf of the prosecution in this case were copies of two reports Exs. P-7 and P-8 by the District Information Officer, Mathura, and by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Vrindaban, through the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, indicating that publicity of the District Magistrate's order had been given. 7. To prove the papers Exs. P-7 and P-8 one Mahesh Chandra Gupta, P.W. 5, a Clerk of the office of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Mathura, was examined, Mahesh Chandra Gupta proved that the reports Exs. P-7 and P-8 had been received from the respective officers, namely the District Information Officer, Mathura, and the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Vrindaban, Mahesh Chandra Gupta, however, made it clear in his cross-examination that no publicity of the District Magistrate's Order had been made in his presence. The reports Exs. P-7 and P-8 cannot, therefore, furnish proof of the actual fact that publicity had been given in any of the manners laid down by the District Magistrate in his District Control of Letting of Accomodation Order, 1951. 8. In a case of this nature it is not enough to show that the authority making the Order indicated some manner which in its opinion was considered best adapted for informing the persons concerned, but it must also be shown that such direction given by the authority was actually carried out. As there was no proof on the record to show that the direction had actually been carried out and the provisions of the District Control of Letting of Accommodation Order, 1951, had been promulgated or published in the manner required by it, the applicants could not be held guilty of the breach of the conditions of such Order. 9. In this view of the matter the conviction and sentence of the applicants u/s 8 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act of 1947, as amended by the Act of 1948, read with Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Mathura District Control of Letting of Accommodation Order, 1951, cannot be sustained. I therefore allow the application in revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicants and direct that the fine, if paid by them, shall be refunded.