JUDGMENT Mukerji, J. - This is a petition by R.L. Benipuri, who had been allotted premises No. 189, Sri Ram Road, Lucknow, by an order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, dated 21-9-1956. It appears that the Petitioner was unable to get actual possession of the premises because the owner of the premises did not let the Petitioner get into possession. The possession was subsequently obtained with police assistance and the Petitioner was put into possession on 29-9-1955. 2. One Madan Mohan Lal filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Lucknow, praying that the Petitioner be restrained from taking possession of the house. The learned Munsif issued a temporary injunction, as was prayed for by the Plaintiff of that suit, and this temporary injuction was served on the Petitioner on the 30-9-1955. The Petitioner contended before the Munsif that he had already taken possession of the premises and, therefore, there was no further occasion for issuing an injunction restraining him from taking possession. The learned Munsif appointed a Commissioner to go and find out as to whether or not the premises were in the Petitioner's possession. The Commissioner visited the premises on 30-9-1955 at 4-30 p.m., and he made a report to the effect that the entire second floor was in the possession of the Petitioner. He also appended two plans to his report to indicate the respective areas of the premises which were respectively in the possession of the Petitioner and the Plaintiff of that suit. The learned Munsif disposed of the injunction application on 12-11-1955, in terms of an agreement arrived at between the parties to that suit the agreement, which appears to have been arrived at between the parties, was that the status quo was to be maintained in regard to the possession in respect of the premises. 3. It appears that information was conveyed to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the Petitioner had not been occupying the premises which had been allotted to him. On 4-2-1956, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ordered his Senior Inspector III to make an enquiry and find out what the position in regard to the premises was qua the occupation of the premises by the Petitioner. On 4-2-1956, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer ordered his Senior Inspector III to make an enquiry and find out what the position in regard to the premises was qua the occupation of the premises by the Petitioner. The report was in due course submitted by the Senior Inspector and the report indicated that the Petitioner did not reside in that portion of the premises which had been allotted to him but that one Tirath Ram was in occupation thereof. On 10-2-1956, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued a notice to the Petitioner to show cause, within two days, as to why the allotment order in his favour should not be cancelled since, he had not been living in the house but someone else had been 'accommodated' there which was not legal. The Petitioner put in a written reply to this notice on 13-2-1956, in which he stated that Madan Mohan Lal had bolted the main entrance door from inside and did not allow him to enter and occupy the premises, and that Madan Mohan Lal head really been defying the order of allotment. The Petitioner also prayed that he may be put in possession of the allotted house. On 17-2-1956, another notice was issued to the Petitioner from the office of the Town Rationing Officer calling upon the Petitioner to attend his office at 2 p.m. on 20-2-1956, with necessary documents in order to support his contention. The Petitioner did not appear before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and therefore the Officer determined the question which he had to decide, namely whether the premises which had been allotted to the Petitioner had "become vacant," because the Petitioner had ceased to occupy or was not occupying those premises. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order in these words: Sri R.L. Benipuri has not appeared in spite of the notice served upon him. His application dated 13-2-1956 has been considered. The facts stated by him are not correct. This has been found on enquiry that he does not live in the house allotted to him and he is still living in his old house situated at Jadu Nath Sanyal Road, Lucknow. It appears that he is not using the house for in his residence in a bona fide manner and has misused the allotment order. The allotment order in his favour is, therefore, cancelled. 4. It appears that he is not using the house for in his residence in a bona fide manner and has misused the allotment order. The allotment order in his favour is, therefore, cancelled. 4. On the basis of the aforequoted order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer formally passed an order cancelling the allotment on 31-3-1956. On 4-4-1956, the Petitioner was informed of this order. 5. The Petitioner has by this petition prayed that the order of 31-3-1956, be quashed as the said order had been made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without jurisdiction, was illegal and ultra vires. The entire submission of learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, has centred round his contention that once an order of allotment has been validly made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, that order cannot thereafter be canceled by that officer. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had actually got into possession of the premises with the assistance of the police on 29-9-1955 and that, thereafter, he would be deemed to have continued in possession of the premises. The view that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer took of the matter was that even if the Petitioner had in fact got into possession of the premises, since he ceased to occupy and reside on the premises there was a vacancy and as such the order could be cancelled and a fresh allotment in respect of the premises made. An officer who has the power to make an order has also the power to cancel that order, if the circumstances demand such a cancellation. So that, there was no inherent want of jurisdiction in the officer cancelling the order in question. The question that calls for determination is whether the Petitioner had ceased to occupy the premises. The question is one of fact. The materials that have been placed before us do not indicate that the Petitioner had in fact continued to occupy the premises. Indeed, his contention was that he was prevented from continuing in occupation. The contention before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was that the Petitioner never occupied the premises but that he had in effect obtained possession of the premises by putting in one Tirath Ram in possession thereof. Indeed, his contention was that he was prevented from continuing in occupation. The contention before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was that the Petitioner never occupied the premises but that he had in effect obtained possession of the premises by putting in one Tirath Ram in possession thereof. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had materials before him to determine this question of fact and he has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had not been occupying the premises and as such had ceased to occupy the premises. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not raised the question that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acted contrary to any well recognised principles on which an administrative officer could make such orders as were quasi judicial orders prior to his making the administrative order, namely, the order cancelling the allotment. The question that was in effect raised was, in our opinion, a question of fact on which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was competent to make his decision. We have seen no want of jurisdiction or any such other illegality in the order made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as entitled us to quash that order by a writ of certiorari. 6. In the result, we have seen no force in this petition which we dismiss with costs.