JUDGMENT B. Upadhya, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and injunction. 2. A shop situated in premises No. 47/4 Hatia Bazar. Kanpur was occupied by some person who vacated it on 1-5-1949(sic). The Plaintiff then occupied that shop and claims that he paid rent of the shop to the owner of the house on 22-5-1949 from which date it is contended the Plaintiff became a tenant of the shop. The Defendant applied for allotment of the shop under the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act on 30-5-1949 and an allotment order was passed in favour of Defendant No. 1 on 3-8-1949. I appears that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer had issued a notice to the Plaintiff to vacate the premises and give possession to the allottee and the said order is said to have been received by the Plaintiff on 26-9-1949. The Plaintiff claimed that the allotment and the notice requiring him to vacate were all illegal and invalid on the ground that the shop was not vacant within the meaning of the law and it could not be allotted to the Defendant No. 1 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the Plaintiff was never in possession of this disputed accommodation and it was actually taken when the application for allotment was made and that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of the parties inasmuch as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not been impleaded and that the Plaintiff could not challenge the orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in a civil court. Defendant No. 2 is the house owner and is a proforma Defendant in the suit. 3. The trial court held that the accommodation was vacant when the Defendant No. 1 had put in his application for allotment for accommodation and that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was valid, that the suit was not bad for non joinder of necessary parties and on these findings the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. On appeal the lower appellate court found that inasmuch as the Plaintiff had no allotment order in his favour the shop in dispute should be treated as vacant and a valid allotment could be made of the same. On appeal the lower appellate court found that inasmuch as the Plaintiff had no allotment order in his favour the shop in dispute should be treated as vacant and a valid allotment could be made of the same. The lower Appellant court also found that in the notification issued by the District Magistrate he had reserved the right to allot any accommodation whether the same was reported by the landlord or by an outgoing tenant or by any third person to him or not and the allotment even in the absence of any report relating to the vacancy was valid It was further found that the allotment order in the present case was valid and on these findings the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. 4. Mr. D. Sanyal Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that according to the Plaintiff's allegations the shop was vacated by the former tenant on 1-5-1949 and that the Plaintiff occupied it on 27-5-1949 and became a tenant on 1-6-1949 when he paid rent for the shop to the owner of the house. Learned Counsel contends that an accommodation may be held to be vacant under the Act if it be vacant in accordance with the definition of that word as given in S. 2 (h) of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act. This provision reads as follows: 2 (h) "vacant" where used with reference to any accommodation, includes an accommodation about to fall vacant, an intimation whereof has been sent by the tenant of the landlord to the District Magistrate 5. With reference to this definition it was contemned that on the date when the allotment was made the shop could not be said to be vacant because a tenant who had paid rent to the owner was in actual occupation. Learned Counsel further contended that it was necessary for the landlord and for the outgoing tenant to give notice of the vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate in accordance with S. 7 A (I) of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act, and if the District Magistrate had then found that the Plaintiff was in possession without an allotment order in his favour he should have taken action u/s 7A of the Act. If that had been done, it is contended, that the Plaintiff could have proceeded under the Act in revision to the Commr. and then to the State Govt. If that had been done, it is contended, that the Plaintiff could have proceeded under the Act in revision to the Commr. and then to the State Govt. to get his grievance redressed. Uuless the Plaintiff had been made to vacate the shop by proceedings under the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act, the shop could not be said to be vacant and without the shop being vacant no allotment could be made. It is therefore argued that the allotment as made was not a valid allotment. 6. It is admitted that the former tenant who was in the occupation of the tenement had vacated it on 1-5 1949; that when the Plaintiff occupied the shop he had no allotment order in his favour and that he did contest the application made by the Defendant No. 1 for the allotment of the shop but was unsuccessful. The question is as to whether it was open to the plaintiff to circumvent the provisions of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act and get into actual occupation of the shop and then resist the claim of a person who proceeded according to law and was granted an allotment order in his favour. The UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act says in its preamble- And whereas due to the shortage of accommodation in the UP it is expedient to provide for the continuance during a limited period of powers to control the letting and the rent of such accommodation and to prevent the eviction of tenants therefrom. 7. This indicates unmistakably that the object of this enactment is to control the letting and to prevent eviction of tenants. Control of letting has been dealt with in S. 7 of the Act which requires intimation of vacancy to be given by the landlord who wishes to occupy an accommodation and by a 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. This provision indicates that so long as the landlord continues to occupy an accommodation which is not vacant, so long as a tenant continues to occupy it and so long as the requisition remains in force the accommodation is not vacant. In the present case the tenant who was admittedly occupying it before the Plaintiff took possession vacated on 1-5-1949. This provision indicates that so long as the landlord continues to occupy an accommodation which is not vacant, so long as a tenant continues to occupy it and so long as the requisition remains in force the accommodation is not vacant. In the present case the tenant who was admittedly occupying it before the Plaintiff took possession vacated on 1-5-1949. The accommodation fell vacant within the meaning of S. 7A (a). It became the duty of the landlord and of the outgoing tenant to give notice of the vacancy in writing to the District Magistrate. The landlord in not acting in this way acted contrary to law or in a manner which was wrongful. Sub/S. (2) of S. 7 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." 8. This provision puts a definite restriction on the ordinary powers of a landlord to let out his premises. One of the incidents of ownership recognised under the Transfer of Property Act is that the owner of a property may let it out to another person on rent. The provisions of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act put a restraint on letting and imposes the restriction mentioned in S. 7 (2) if he District Magistrate by a special or general order requires this to be done. The order was passed by the District Magistrate controlling the letting of accommodation in Kanpur as mentioned in S. 7 (2). The owner therefore was not legally competent to let out the premises to the Plaintiff and create a tenancy which could be said to be a valid tenancy in law. The Plaintiff therefore could not base his claim to be in possession of the shop on any legal ground. He cannot be heard to say that he was a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act and thus entitled to remain in possession. He had contravened the law in taking possession of an accommodation without an allotment order in his favour. He cannot be heard to say that he was a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act and thus entitled to remain in possession. He had contravened the law in taking possession of an accommodation without an allotment order in his favour. He had therefore no legal right to remain in possession and if a person who does not hold an allotment order issued by the control authorities and who also cannot validly claim to be a tenant of the accommodation occupies an accommodation he is a mere trespasser and the question is whether a trespasser is entitled to the reliefs such as those claimed by the Plaintiff in the present case. 9. If an accommodation falls vacant, the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act provides how it should be occupied legally. The control authorities alone are competent to decide as to who shall occupy it. Even an owner cannot occupy an accommodation that he fallen vacant without an order of allotment in his favour. The wrongful possession of a trespasser cannot be recognised as legal and the accommodation that has fallen vacant cannot be considered to have ceased to be vacant simply because a trespasser wrongfully takes possession of the same. 10. In the light of the above observations, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was competent to pass an allotment order in respect of the shop in question and the allotment order cannot be said to be invalid on the ground that the Plaintiff had taken prior possession of the shop. Accordingly, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was also justified in issuing notice to the Plaintiff to vacate the shop. 11. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 12. The interim injunction order is withdrawn. 13. Leave to appeal is requested, but is refused.