JUDGMENT Mehrotra, J. - The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were the landlords and owners of house No. 15, Lukerganj, Allahabad, and the Petitioner No. 3 was the tenant. One of the portions of the house was in the tenancy of one Sri Laitoo. According to the Petitioners Laitoo made several defaults in the payment of rent and litigation was going on between him and the landlords. The other portion of the house was allotted to the Petitioner No. 3, on or about 7-1-1955 and he occupied the portion in pursuance of the allotment order. The Petitioner No. 3 was employed under the Controller of Defence Accounts and was transferred out of Allahabad but the assertion of the Petitioners is that the family of the Petitioner No. 3 continued to live in the accommodation in question and the rent was regularly paid by or on his behalf to the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. The opposite party No. 2 was a tenant in a portion of the house No. 14, Lukerganj, Allahabad and the present Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were the owners of that house. Several defaults were committed by him in the payment of rent and steps had to be taken by the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 for the recovery of rent from him. The house No. 14 was later on sold by the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 to one Pt. Rama Kant and the opposite party No. 2 continued to be in the tenancy of that house and he also committed further defaults in the payment of rent to Pt. Rama Kant. In July, 1956 Pt. Rama Kant however persuaded him to vacate his house and the opposite party No. 2 vacated it. He then applied for the allotment of the portion of 15, Lukergarnj, which stood allotted in the name of the Petitioner No. 3 on the ground that it was vacant, although according to the Petitioners the family of the Petitioner No. 3 was in its occupation. On 31-7-1956 a copy of the allotment order obtained by the opposite party No. 2 regarding the portion in dispute and which was in the tenancy of the Petitioner No. 3 was served on the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. On 31-7-1956 a copy of the allotment order obtained by the opposite party No. 2 regarding the portion in dispute and which was in the tenancy of the Petitioner No. 3 was served on the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. The Petitioners intended to file their objections but it is asserted by the Petitioners that Sri R.D. Sharma broke open the door and occupied a portion of the accommodation in respect of which he had obtained the allotment order. Thereafter objections were filed by the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer instead of taking any auction on the said objections issued notice to the Petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and to appear before him on 24-8-1956 for determination of rent of the accommodation allotted to the opposite party No. 2. The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were so far getting rent from the Petitioner No. 3 at Rs. 45 per mensem. According to the Petitioners there was thus no justification in passing the allotment order in favour of the opposite party No. 2 when there was no vacancy and the premises were in the occupation of the tenant's family. On these facts the present petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (a) That a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the allotment order dated 30-7-1956; and (b) a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to restore the status quo ante and to put the Petitioner No 3 in possession of the entire portion allotted to him and continuing in his tenancy. It was further prayed that the opposite party No. 1 be directed not to proceed further with the proceedings for determination of rent and further proceedings for the enforcement of the allotment order dated 30-7-1956 be quashed. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, the Area Rationing Officer (Rent Control) Allahabad and Sri R.D. Sharma, and a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. 3. In the counter affidavit it is stated that house No. 15, Lukerganj, has two tenements, both belonging to the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. In the northern tenements some tenants have been living while the southern portion fell vacant as the allottee Sri Kasturi Lal Sharma (the Petitioner No. 3) was transferred to Meerut. 3. In the counter affidavit it is stated that house No. 15, Lukerganj, has two tenements, both belonging to the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. In the northern tenements some tenants have been living while the southern portion fell vacant as the allottee Sri Kasturi Lal Sharma (the Petitioner No. 3) was transferred to Meerut. On coming to know of the vacancy an application was made by him for the allotment of this portion on the 27-7-1956 10 the District Magistrate. On 33-7-1956 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed the order of allotment which was duly served on the landlord and the opposite party No. 2 states that he took possession of the southern tenement on 31-7-1956 except one room. This one room was discovered to be occupied by one Sri Kashi Nath Pande, a dismissed Sub-Inspector of Police. Kashi Nath Pande refused to vacate the room unlawfully occupied by him and on 1-8-1956 an application was given by the contesting opposite party No. 2 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer or getting that room vacated through the help of Police. Notice was sent to Kashi Nath Pande and was affixed on 2-8-1956. As a precautionary measure another notice was sent to Kashi Nath Pande on 6-8-1956 which was affixed on 7-8-1956. It is asserted by the opposite party No. 2 that Kashi Nath Pande had brought some ladies from Meerut of the family of Sri Kasturi Lal Sharma as on 16-8-1956 when a notice u/s 7-A(3) was sent by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer one Raj Kumari Sharma signed that notice for Kashi Nath Pande. On 21-8-1956 when the police went to get the room vacated Sri Kashi Nath Pande, who was virtually living in that one room, stated orally to the police that he was not living in it and the police took back the order to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for further directions. Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer directed the police to evict Raj Kumari Sharma and another lady Smt. Tara Bai who were subsequently found living in that one room. The opposite party No. 2 asserts that he had been living in three rooms out of four allotted to him and on 22-8-1956 the police evicted the occupants from the room occupied by Kashi Nath Pande. The opposite party No. 2 asserts that he had been living in three rooms out of four allotted to him and on 22-8-1956 the police evicted the occupants from the room occupied by Kashi Nath Pande. The family of Kasturi Lal Sharma never resided in the portion allotted to him and all this has been manipulated by Kashi Nath Pande, a dismissed Sub-inspector of Police. As against the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 it is stated that they were trying to sell the houses Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16, Lukerganj, and for that purpose as the prospective buyers wanted to get vacant possession the landlords attempted to get vacant possession by any process. Only one room was in the occupation of Kashi Nath Pande and Kashi Nath Pande was getting his letters at the same address, and no member of Kasturi Lal Sharma's family was living in any portion of the house. It is further asserted that Smt. Shanta Sharma had been brought from Sonepat (Punjab) merely to lend support to the design of the landlord and Kashi Nath Pande. She is a married lady and has no reason to be living at 15 Lukerganj, Allahabad, when her husband is living in Sonepat. 4. In this case a good deal of controversy was raised by the opposite party No. 2 regarding the fact whether the ladies who were asserting to be in possession of the disputed premises were related to the Petitioner No. 3 or not. It has been contended by the opposite party No. 2 that Sri Kashi Nath Pande brought certain ladies from Sonepat and kept them in the premises whom he was alleging to be the relations of the Petitioner No. 3. It has not been specifically contended that they are not related to the Petitioner No. 3. Apart from it, it has not been asserted by the opposite party No. 2 that the present petition was not filed on behalf of Kasturi Lal Sharma who was the tenant. In these circumstances even if this argument is accepted that Smt. Shanta Sharma was married in Punjab and it was unlikely that she should have stayed in this house it cannot be said that the Petitioner No. 3 had ceased to be in possession of the premises. The opposite party No. 2 had applied for the allotment of the accommodation on 27-7-1956. The opposite party No. 2 had applied for the allotment of the accommodation on 27-7-1956. The allotment order was made on 30-7-1956. A copy of that order was served on the landlords on the 1st of August. On 2-8-1956 they filed objections wherein they stated that Sri R.D. Sharma had taken possession of one or two kothris unlawfully although the said portion is still in occupation of Sri Kasturi Lal. It will therefore appear that at the earliest opportunity this objection was filed on behalf of the landlords that the accommodation was still in the occupation of Kasturi Lal Sharma and that the opposite party No. 2 had taken forcible possession of a portion of the accommodation. 5. The contention of the opposite party No. 2 is that he having found a part of the premises allotted to him vacant actually stepped into the house and only one room was occupied by Kashi Nath Pande who refused to give possession and consequently the opposite party No. 2 had to apply to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for police help on 1-8-1956. In that application it was stated that: I got the possession over two rooms only. The fourth room is illegally occupied by one Sri Kashi Nath Pande (dismissed Sub inspector of Police). He has orally promised to vacate the fourth room within a week. But he may or may not vacate the same. So I request you kindly to order the police to give possession of the remaining two rooms by taking possession of the parts of old motor cycle in their possession and also by evicting Sri Kashi Nath Pande who has illegally occupied one room. Even if there was in allotment order in favour of a party the allottee cannot enter into possession of the accommodation when the landlord objects to his entry. From the objection filed by the landlords on. 2-8-1956 it is quite clear that they did not consent to the allottee taking possession and the opposite party No. 2 when he had occupied a part of the accommodation had done so without the consent of the landlords. From the objection filed by the landlords on. 2-8-1956 it is quite clear that they did not consent to the allottee taking possession and the opposite party No. 2 when he had occupied a part of the accommodation had done so without the consent of the landlords. If there is a valid allotment order in favour of a person and the landlord with out any reason does not deliver possession to the allottee or a third party who is in occupation does not vacate the premises it is open to the allottee to take proceedings u/s 7-A for the ejectment of the unauthorised Occupants; but it does not give him power to go and enter into possession even though the landlord is not willing to give him possession of the premises. Especially in a cage where there is a controversy between the parties as to whether the previous tenant is still in occupation of the premises or not the allottee cannot enter into forcible possession of the premises without initiating proceedings u/s 7-A. If proceedings u/s 7-A are started it will give an opportunity to the previous tenant who asserts that he still continues to be in possession to establish that fact before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on consideration of the evidence produced by the parties would come to a decision whether the tenant was in actual occupation of the accommodation or not. The proceedings u/s 7-A cannot to my mind be circumvented by getting an allotment order and then entering into possession of the accommodation even though it is asserted by the landlord that the previous tenant has not yet vacated the premises. The whole object of Section 7-A will be nullified if an allottee is given a right to enter into possession of a part of the premises which he finds unoccupied even though the landlord objects to his entry on the ground that the previous tenant has not vacated it. It does not appear that at any stage the question whether the previous tenant had in fact vacated the premises was considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It does not appear that at any stage the question whether the previous tenant had in fact vacated the premises was considered by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. u/s 7 of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, it is provided under Sub-section (1)(a) that: Every landlord shall, within 7 days after an accommodation becomes vacant by his ceasing to occupy it or by the tenant vacating it or otherwise ceasing to occupy it or by termination of a tenancy or by release from requisition or in any other manner whatsoever, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate. In the present case no notice was given by the landlords. Clause (2) of Section 7 then provides that. The District Magistrate may by general or special order require a landlord to let or not to let to any person any accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. 6. In the present case the ground on which the allotment was made is not that the accommodation was about to fall vacant but on the information given to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the opposite party No. 2 that the accommodation had fallen vacant. From the allotment order it does appear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not applied his mind at all to the question whether there was in fact any vacancy. The order was passed on 30-7-1956. On 2-8-1956 it was brought to the notice of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an objection filed by the landlords that the accommodation had not been vacated by the previous tenant. The order of allotment itself says that this order is in supersession of the order dated 7-1-1955. The order of 7-1-1955 which has been superseded by this order was the order of allotment in favour of the Petitioner No. 3. It is quite clear that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not apply his mind to the question whether the premises were vacant at the time when the allotment order was made on 30-7-1956 or not. It appears that he accepted the representation made by the opposite party No. 2 that the tenant had vacated it and resting upon that representation allotted the premises to him without ascertaining the fact whether the premises had been vacated by the previous tenant or not. It appears that he accepted the representation made by the opposite party No. 2 that the tenant had vacated it and resting upon that representation allotted the premises to him without ascertaining the fact whether the premises had been vacated by the previous tenant or not. Therefore the order dated 30-7-1956 to my mind was an order which must be quashed. 7. Apart from this, as I have already indicated, this order was in supersession of an earlier order of allotment in favour of the present Petitioner No. 3 and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no power to cancel his previous allotment order unless he found that the order had been obtained by any misrepresentation or fraud. If the accommodation had fallen vacant a fresh right to make an allotment u/s 7 accrues to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer but he has no power to cancel his previous allotment order if the allottee had entered into possession in pursuance of that allotment order unless he comes to the conclusion that the allotment order had been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. If therefore the allotment order of 30-7-1956 is taken to be a fresh allotment order in favour of the opposite party No. 2 it is illegal in as much as it was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer without applying his mind to the question as to whether the accommodation was vacant or not and assuming on the mere representation made by the opposite party No. 2 that the previous tenant had vacated it. And if it is taken to be a cancellation of the previous order of allotment in favour of the Petitioner No. 3 it cannot be upheld inasmuch as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no power to cancel his previous allotment order unless he found that the allotment order had been obtained by fraud or suppression of any material fact. 8. I therefore allow this petition with costs against the opposite party No. 2 as the case has not been contested by the opposite party No. 1 and quash the order dated 30-7-1956 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotting the premises to the opposite party No. 2 R.D. Sharma. The Petitioner No. 3 is entitled to the restoration of the possession over the portion from which he has been dispossessed by the opposite party No. 2.