ORDER This appeal is filed by Sheikh Mohammad Umar whose petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed by Sen, J. The Petitioner is the landlord of a house at Bilaspur in respect of a block of which he had given an intimation (Annexure I), dated 4-1-1955, to the House Rent Controller, Bilaspur (respondent) under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). He had obtained a decree for ejectment against one Ibrahim who was a tenant in respect of the said block. Bashir and Radar were sub-tenants of Ibrahim. In the intimation (Annexure I ), dated 4-1-1955, the Petitioner stated that the block which was in possession of his tenant required repairs and further that he needed it for his bona fide occupation. As some displaced persons had made applications for allotment of the block to them, the House Rent Controller issued notice to them and also to the Petitioner. The case was fixed for hearing on 12-2-1955. On that date the hearing was adjourned to 24-2-1955 for recording evidence. As the presiding Officer was on tour on 24-2-1955, the case was adjourned to 16-3-1955. On that day the Petitioner made an application that as the Respondent had not passed an order within fifteen days of the submission of the intimation as required by Sub-clause (1) of Clause 23 of the Order, he had no jurisdiction to allot the block to any one and that the proceedings should be filed. The objection of the Petitioner was overruled by the Respondent by his order dated 16-3-1955, the relevant portion of which is as follows: The applicant landlord on 12-2-1955 wanted to adduce evidence to produce (prove) his bona fides also and now he comes up with this application which, according to me, is not now tenable in view of the enquiries afoot after which any order of allotment would be passed and hence the application is rejected. The learned single Judge did not decide the question whether the enquiry contemplated under the proviso to Clause 23 (1) of the Order has to be completed within fifteen days of the submission of the intimation as the final order by the Respondent had not been passed, and dismissed the petition as premature. The learned single Judge did not decide the question whether the enquiry contemplated under the proviso to Clause 23 (1) of the Order has to be completed within fifteen days of the submission of the intimation as the final order by the Respondent had not been passed, and dismissed the petition as premature. The only question for consideration is whether the enquiry under the proviso to Sub-clause (1) of Clause 23 of the Order has to be completed within fifteen days of the intimation given by the landlord under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 22 ibid. Under Sub-clause (I) of Clause 22 of the Order the landlord has to give, within seven days from the date on which the landlord becomes finally aware that the house will become vacant or available for occupation by himself or for other occupation on or about a specified date; intimation of the fact to the Deputy Commissioner of the district or to such other officer as may be specified by him in the form given in the Schedule appended to the Order. He is prohibited from letting out the premises or occupying them himself except in accordance with Clause 23 of the Order. Under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 23 "the Deputy Commissioner may, within fifteen days of the said intimation, order the landlord to let the vacant house to any person...." Under Sub-clause (2) the landlord is free to let the vacant house to any person if no such order is passed and served on him within fifteen days of the submission of the intimation. But, the proviso to sub Clause (1) of Clause 23 comes into play when the landlord in the intimation given under Clause 22 states that he needs the house for his own occupation. The Deputy Commissioner has then to satisfy himself, after due enquiry, that the house is so needed by the landlord and if he is so satisfied he may permit the landlord to occupy the same. The proviso does not lay down that the enquiry as to the need of the landlord has to be completed within fifteen days of the receipt of the intimation. There is no force in the contention that an order permitting the landlord to occupy the house has also to be passed within fifteen days of the intimation. The proviso does not lay down that the enquiry as to the need of the landlord has to be completed within fifteen days of the receipt of the intimation. There is no force in the contention that an order permitting the landlord to occupy the house has also to be passed within fifteen days of the intimation. If that be the intention of the legislature any landlord would easily defeat the provisions of Clause 23 by delaying tactics when the Deputy Commissioner starts an enquiry into the application of the landlord that the house is needed by him for his own occupation. We are of the opinion that it is not incumbent on the Deputy Commissioner that the enquiry contemplated under the proviso to Sub-clause (1) of Clause 23 should be completed within fifteen days of the submission of the intimation under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 22. In the above view, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. Appeal dismissed.