JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application in revision filed by one Bhola Nath who has been convicted u/s 8 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 2. The facts of the case appear to be that there was a house in which Bhola Nath himself was living. There was a room in that house which had fallen vacant. An application was made by Smt. Tara Devi for allotment of the room to her. The house is said to have been old. Before that Bhola Nath himself had applied on 15-7-1953 that he wanted additional accommodation and his need was most urgent and genuine. No orders seem to have been passed on the application of the landlord and the room was allotted to Tara Devi and allotment order was issued to the applicant. Thereafter, it is alleged the applicant did not give the home to the allottee and, therefore, a case u/s 8 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act was started. 3. The defence of the applicant was that actually this portion of the house had become dangerous and a notice had been served on him, dated 28-10-1953 asking him to demolish that portion, by the Municipal Board as that portion had become dangerous to the neighbours. It was by virtue of that notice that he was compelled to demolish that portion of the house. 4. There is another application by Smt. Tara Devi dated 23-11-1953 that doors, kundas and walls have been broken of the house. This appears to be immediately after the notice of the Municipal Board and, therefore, it appears that the applicant only complied with the notice of the Municipal Board. If there was no accommodation which was available for letting out, the applicant could not be said to have contravened any provision of the Rent Control and Eviction Act and the charge against him was that he had removed the doors and made the room uninhabitable. So far as the making of the room uninhabitable is concerned, before a person occupies a house it is open to the landlord to demolish the house, and there is no provision in the Rent Control and Eviction Act against demolition by the landlord. The only right given to the District Magistrate is that he can control the letting. So far as the making of the room uninhabitable is concerned, before a person occupies a house it is open to the landlord to demolish the house, and there is no provision in the Rent Control and Eviction Act against demolition by the landlord. The only right given to the District Magistrate is that he can control the letting. But if the accommodation itself is destroyed it cannot be said that there has been any contravention of Section 7 of the Act. In case the tenant had already occupied it and then it was damaged, the question would have been a different one. In case there was a notice given by the Municipal Board in October and thereafter this demolition took place it cannot be said that the applicant only removed the doors etc. for the purpose of flouting the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In any event, there is an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 1-12-1953 that in view of the litigation pending in the court between Tara Devi and Bhola Nath he was of opinion that the allotment order should not be enforced and the papers be filed. If that was the position I do not think there should have been any further prosecution u/s 8 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act. In any event, the accused is at least entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 5. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the conviction and sentence. The fine if realised shall be refunded.