JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is a petition on behalf of four persons who were originally tenants of a house No. DB 4/65 in mohalla Humayunpur in the city of Gorakhpur. They were tenants of the lower portion of this house. On 14-8-1952 they purchased this house. This house was, according to the allegations made in the petition, purchased by them because they were in great need for an accommodation. The upper portion was occupied by one Robin Biswas who vacated the house on 22-8-1954. When this portion fell vacant on 23-8-1954 the Petitioners sent a letter to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that as the house had fallen vacant it should be allotted to them. They had purchased the house for their own personal use and, therefore, they wanted its release in their favour. The house also required a thorough repair and the repairs in both the portions were done by the Petitioners at great cost. 2. On 9-12-1954 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, without giving any notice to the Petitioners or consulting them whatsoever, allotted the said portion of the house in favour of Ishwar Chand, opposite party No. 3, and on 10-12-1954, with the aid of the police, possession was delivered. On 14-12-1954 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer sent another order directing the Petitioners not to demolish any part of the upper house without previous permission from him. It is alleged that since the house required repairs and the repairs had not been done the house is deteriorating. Against the order of allotment and forcible ejectment u/s 7-B of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act the Petitioners went up in revision to the Addl. Commr., Banaras Gorakhpur division who, though in his order has held that the procedure u/s 7-A was not followed and the order was not justified, yet did not interfere with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Aggrieved with that order, the Petitioners have come here. 3. Commr., Banaras Gorakhpur division who, though in his order has held that the procedure u/s 7-A was not followed and the order was not justified, yet did not interfere with the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Aggrieved with that order, the Petitioners have come here. 3. It was contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they had purchased the house because they wanted more accommodation and they contend that when the house had fallen vacant it should have been allotted to them, inter alia on the following grounds, Firstly, that they as landlords were living in a portion of the house and when the other portion of the house fell vacant they should have been consulted at the time of allotment. According to Rule 7 Where a portion of accommodation falls vacant and the owner is in occupation of another portion thereof, the District Magistrate shall, before making the allotment order, consult the owner and shall so far as possible make the allotment in accordance with the wishes of the owner. 4. This provision is a mandatory provision and it is clear that this provision was not followed at all by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It was contended on behalf of the Opposite party that there could be buildings which may be divided into several parts and yet each may be a separate accommodation. That will be a question of fact and if the building is a very large one, having different accommodations, this provision may not be applicable. But so far as this case is concerned, from the facts of the case it is clear that this house is not of that nature. 5. The second ground is that the landlord required the house for himself and his needs should have been consulted. So far as this rule is concerned, it appears that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did consider the need and he came to the conclusion that the owners did not need it genuinely as they were already in occupation of the lower portion of the said house. Though the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has given a reason that the Petitioners were living in the lower portion, yet he does not seem to have considered the need from the point of view whether more accommodation was needed or not and he has given no reason. Though the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has given a reason that the Petitioners were living in the lower portion, yet he does not seem to have considered the need from the point of view whether more accommodation was needed or not and he has given no reason. From his judgment it does not appear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer at all considered it necessary to give a finding about the need of the Petitioners on account of requirement for further accommodation. The house was, in any event, vacated only on 22-8-1954 and no allotment had been made for thirty days and if no allotment is made within thirty days the landlord has a right Under Rule 4 to have the allotment made to his nominee. The allotment was admittedly made on 9-12-54, almost three and a half months after the vacation. On that ground also the landlords had a right to ask the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to have it allotted to themselves. 6. It is further objected that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had issued the order u/s 7-A without giving notice as required thereunder and the forcible ejectment by the police was not justified. Section 7-A requires that if the District Magistrate believes or has reason to believe that any person has contraverted the order regarding an accommodation being or not being let, he may call upon the person in occupation to show cause, within a time to be fixed, why he should not be evicted therefrom. It is only after the notice has been issued that he has power to order forcible eviction, because Sub-section (2) of Section 7-A provides that if such person fails to appear in reply to the notice served under Sub-section (1) or, if he appears but fails to satisfy the District Magistrate that the order under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 was not duly passed and that he is entitled to remain in occupation of the accommodation, the District Magistrate, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken against him, direct him to vacate the premises within a period to be specified. It is after this procedure that the District Magistrate is entitled to send for the police for forcible eviction. It is after this procedure that the District Magistrate is entitled to send for the police for forcible eviction. The preliminary proceeding of issuing notice or asking him to vacate within a fixed period having not being taken the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for forcible possession was wholly illegal. 7. Under the circumstances, I set aside the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 9-12-1954 and 10-12-1954. The Petitioners shall be put in possession of the house. Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer shall decide the question of allotment according to law. The Petitioners shall be entitled to costs from opposite party No. 3.