JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the orders dated 23rd of March, 1955 and 10th of May, 1955 made by the District Magistrate of Kanpur be quashed and further, that the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 7th May, 1952, 18th May, 1955 and 16th June, 1955 be also quashed. 2. Quarter No. 3 in premises No. K.N. 85, Om Nagar Kanpur fell vacant on the ejectment of opposite party No. 3, Jwala Prasad, on the 28th of March, 1952 but on the 1st April, (sic) the said quarter was allotted to one Sri B.B.L. Nigam who occupied it. It appears that a complaint was made by the opposite party No. 3 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that Sri Nigam was not occupying the quarter and ultimately the allotment order in favour of Sri B.B.L. Nigam was quashed. On the 7th May, 1952, the allotment was thereafter again made in favour of Jwala Prasad. After allotment in favour of Jwala Prasad, proceedings for the ejectment of Sri B.B.L. Nigam were taken u/s 7-A of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act and he was ordered to be ejected. A civil suit was filed by Sri B.B.L. Nigam for a permanent injunction restraining Jwala Prasad from interfering with his possession over the quarter. The trial court dismissed the suit but on appeal the suit was decreed. A second appeal was filed in this Court on behalf of Jwala Prasad. On the 30th of May, 1955 Sri B.B.L. Nigam vacated it and an application was made by the applicant Ram Krishna for allotment of the said quarter in his favour. The premises were then allotted to Ram Krishna on the 1st August, 1953 but he did not occupy the premises and an application was then made by the present applicant Ram Chandra for allotment of the quarter. The landlord consented to the allotment in his favour as the previous allottee Ram Krishna had not occupied the premises. On the 18th September, 1953, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur allotted the premises to the applicant. The applicant, thereafter, entered into possession of the premises. The landlord consented to the allotment in his favour as the previous allottee Ram Krishna had not occupied the premises. On the 18th September, 1953, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur allotted the premises to the applicant. The applicant, thereafter, entered into possession of the premises. The second appeal filed by Jwala Prasad came up for decision before this Court and on the 21st of September, 1954 the appeal was allowed as the counsel for Sri B.B.L. Nigam stated that his client had vacated the premises and, therefore, he had no interest in the appeal and there was no objection to appeal being allowed. On the aforesaid statement of the counsel for Sri. B.B.L. Nigam, the appeal was allowed by this Court. The order of the lower appellate court granting injunction to Sri B.B.L. Nigam was set aside. After the appeal had been allowed by this Court, an application was made by Jwala prasad, opposite party No. 3, on the 23rd of March, 1955 to the District Magistrate praying for the cancellation of the allotment order passed in favour of the applicant. The District Magistrate on tte 15th of May, 1955, passed the following order: Please cancel allotment made in favour of Sri Ram Chandra Singh. Allotment in favour of Sri Jwala Pd. shall stand. 3. After instructions by the District Magistrate, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 18th of May, 1955, passed the following order: Allotment in favour of Ram Chandra Singh is cancelled who is in occupation of the premises. 4. After cancelling the allotment order passed in favour of the applicant, an order was passed u/s 7-A of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 17th June, 1955 ordering the ejectment of the applicant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, on the 17th June, 1955, observed that "the quarter was allotted to Jwala Prasad on the 7th of May, 1952 and orders u/s 7-A(3) of the Act were passed to put the allottee into possession. A stay order had been brought by the opposite party from this Court. The order has now been vacated. Possession was ordered to be delivered to the allottee Jwala Prasad immediately after evicting Ram Chandra Singh". 5. A stay order had been brought by the opposite party from this Court. The order has now been vacated. Possession was ordered to be delivered to the allottee Jwala Prasad immediately after evicting Ram Chandra Singh". 5. In the present petition, as I have already indicated, all these orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer are sought to be quashed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as the opposite party Jwala Prasad. Jwala Prasad has stated that the applicant Ram Chandra Singh had been living with one Ram Sanehi who is a relation of the landlord. Ram Chandra Singh is also landlords' man. No hardship was done to him because he had never been in occupation of the premises. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was asserted that another quarter had been allotted to Jwala Prasad. He has occupied that quarter. In reply to that assertion, Jwala Prasad has stated in his counter affidavit that although that quarter has been allotted to him, he is a poor labourer and cannot afford to pay rent of that quarter. He has, therefore, preferred to occupy the present disputed premises rather than occupying the quarter allotted to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has stated in the counter affidavit that he had no knowledge of the fact that the premises were allotted on the 18th September, 1953 because the fact that the previous allottee of the aforesaid premises had preferred an appeal before this Court, was not brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 2 by the Petitioner. The previous allottee was in fact Ram Krishna to whom allotment had been made on the 1st August, 1953. There was no doubt litigation going on between Jwala Prasad and B.B.L. Nigam and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer may be right in saying that he had no knowledge of the fact that an appeal had been filed by Jwala Prasad but it cannot be said on that ground that any fraud was practised by the present applicant when he obtained an allotment order in his favour on the 18th September, 1953. The jurisdiction to make an allotment ceases if the premises are in fact not vacant. The jurisdiction to make an allotment ceases if the premises are in fact not vacant. It is alleged in the affidavit that Sri B.B.L. Nigam vacated the premises on the 30th May, 1953 and the premises had thereafter been allotted to Ram Krishna on the 1st August, 1953. He did not occupy the premises. Consequently, on the 18th September; 1953, when the premises were allotted to the applicant, they passed were in fact vacant and the order of allotment in favour of the applicant cannot, therefore, be regarded to be without jurisdiction on the ground that the premises were not vacant. In any case, it cannot be said that there is any finding by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the allotment in favour of the applicant was obtained by fraud and in the absence of any such finding, no order could be passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelling the allotment in favour of an allottee who in pursuance of an allotment order is in the occupation of the premises. The present applicant had in fact in pursuance of the allotment order in his favour actually occupied the premises. Consequently, the order cancelling his allotment by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed on the 18th of May, 1955 is illegal. 6. Another ground urged by the applicant in support of the contention that the order cancelling the allotment in his favour is illegal is that the order was passed on the direction of the District Magistrate. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who had passed the order of allotment in favour of the applicant, had jurisdiction to cancel his order but the discretion had to be exercised by him alone and not on the direction of the District Magistrate. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of the 18th of May, 1955 is, therefore, illegal and must be quashed. As the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 18th May, 1955 cancelling the allotment in favour of the applicant is quashed the proceedings u/s 7-A must necessarily be quashed. Section 7-A authorises the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to order ejectment of a person who is in unauthorised occupation of some premises. The occupation of the applicant can only be regarded as unauthorised if the allotment order in his favour stands cancelled. 7. Section 7-A authorises the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to order ejectment of a person who is in unauthorised occupation of some premises. The occupation of the applicant can only be regarded as unauthorised if the allotment order in his favour stands cancelled. 7. Another ground which was taken by the Petitioner was that in any case the proceedings u/s 7-A against the applicant should be quashed in as much as no proper notice was given to the applicant u/s 7-A(2) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act but, admittedly, proceedings u/s 7-A had been started against B.B.L. Nigam. The required notices u/s 7-A(2) and (3) had been given to B.B.L. Nigam alone. After the decision of the appeal by this Court it was not open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to order ejectment of the applicant who was in possession of the premises in his own right under the allotment in his favour without giving him a fresh notice and taking fresh proceedings u/s 7-A against him. On this ground also proceedings u/s 7-A must be quashed. 8. I, therefore, allow this petition with costs quash the orders of the District Magistrate, Kanpur dated 23rd of March, 1955 and 15th of May, 1955 and the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 18th of May, 1955 and 16th of June, 1955. As the applicant had been dispossessed in view of the proceedings u/s 7-A, he is entitled to be restored back to his possession. I, therefore, order that the Petitioner will be restored back to his possession.