ORDER M. Hidayatullah, C.J. 1. This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Dr. Edwards, landlord of house No, 147 in Napier Town, Jabalpur, for quashing an order of allotment of the house made under clause 23 (1) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, to the second respondent Shri S.B. Sen, Government Advocate. 2. The history of this house is somewhat long and may be stated briefly as under: On 5th September 1957 the petitioner intimated to the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, that the house in question was vacated by the M.E.S. The petitioner at that time did not claim to occupy the house personally and by an order dated the 14th September 1957 it was allotted to one K.C. Sharma, Stores Officer, M.E.S., Jabalpur. The petitioner, however, represented that the house needed repairs and after consulting the Rent Controller, the Additional Collector released the house for repairs ordering that the allotment stood and that it would he effective from 1st November 1957. 3. The repairs, it seems, Were effected during the month of October and on 30th October the petitioner intimated the availability of the house for occupation from the 1st November asking, however, for enhanced rent, The letter which was sent by him has not been traced and was said en the first occasion by the petitioner to have been addressed to the Rent Controller, but now he says that it was addressed to the Additional Collector. Be that as it may, K.C. Sharma expressed his willingness to take the house as late as 12th November 1957 but on the 16th November he declined to take the house in view of alternative accommodation having been secured by him. The same day the house was allotted to Shrimati K. Trivedi, a lecturer in the M.H. College of Home Science. 4. The petitioner thereupon wrote a letter to the Additional Collector saying that he had already inducted another tenant after waiting for 15 days from the date of his intimation that the house was available for occupation from the 1st November 1957. He, therefore asked for cancellation of the order of allotment. The Additional Collector, however, rejected the request. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution (M.P. No. 234 of 1957 decried on 28-3-1958). He, therefore asked for cancellation of the order of allotment. The Additional Collector, however, rejected the request. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution (M.P. No. 234 of 1957 decried on 28-3-1958). In that petition he claimed the benefit of the second sub-clause of clause 23 of the Rent Control Order. His contention was repelled by Naik, J. He thereupon filed a letters patent appeal (L.P.A. No. 67 of 1958 decided on 18-7-1958). During the pendency of the letters patent appeal and after the order of Naik, J. the matter went before the Additional Collector, Jabalpur, and on 7th April 1958 on the refusal of Shrimati Trivedi to take the house it was allotted to Shri S.B. Sen, Government Advocate. The petitioner represented that the allotment could not be made to Shri S.B. Sen almost on the same lines on which he had challenged the allotment order in favour of Shrimati Trivedi. His representation was, however, rejected by the Additional Collector. 5. In this petition the contention of Dr. Edwards is that the house was released and the allotment order in favour of K.C. Sharma must be deemed to have been withdrawn leaving the matter open for a fresh allotment when the intimation of the availability of the house for occupation was furnished by him. According to the petitioner, this was done on 30th October 1957 and the Additional Collector was informed that the house was available from the first of the next month. The petitioner claimed that since the Additional Collector failed to make an allotment within 15 days from the receipt of this intimation, he was entitled to let it out to any tenant he liked in view of the provisions of sub-clause (2) of clause 23. 6. In support of his contention the petitioner relied upon the endorsement made by him before the Rent Controller to whom his application for release of the house for repairs had been sent by the Additional Collector. In the application (dated 26th September 1957) it was stated inter alia by the petitioner as follows:- I am submitting this fresh application for reconsidering your previous order, so that. I may get on with the repairs of the bungalow. After I have completed the repairs, etc., etc. the bungalow may be allotted to anybody you are pleased to allot. In the application (dated 26th September 1957) it was stated inter alia by the petitioner as follows:- I am submitting this fresh application for reconsidering your previous order, so that. I may get on with the repairs of the bungalow. After I have completed the repairs, etc., etc. the bungalow may be allotted to anybody you are pleased to allot. The Additional Collector bad endorsed on that application as follows:- I don't think there could be any objection to the releasing back the house to the landlord for the specific purpose of getting essential repairs done for about a month. Pl. report Sd./- R.K. 27-9-57. The endorsement on which reliance is placed by the petitioner reads as follows :- I shall intimate the completion of repairs after the expiry of one month or so & thereafter the house may again be allotted. Sd./- S.J.E. 28-9-57. 7. The petitioner contends that in view of this and the conduct of the officers concerned, it is manifest that the allotment order in favour of K.C. Sharma was vacated and the house was to be re-allotted to a tenant at the choice of the allotting authority after a fresh intimation of the availability of the house. The petitioner, however, overlooks the order of the Additional Collector made after the communication of the request to the Rent Controller and the endorsement by the petitioner quoted above. The Rent Controller reported on the file as follows : I agree. The allotment may stand. The L.L. may be directed to handover possession to the allottee after a month when repairs will be over. Sd./- Illegible. 30/9 The Additional Collector on that ordered: Allotment stands and should be made effective from 1-11-57 by which date L.L. must complete repairs. Inform. Sd/- R.K. 8/10 The petitioner knew of this order. 8. The petitioner's contention that he knew nothing about this order is erroneous because the subsequent history amply proves that he knew of the fact that the house was to go to K.C. Sharma after the repairs were completed. The petitioner, however, began taking advantage of the gap of time and attempted to bring his case within the second sub-clause of clause 23. The petitioner, however, began taking advantage of the gap of time and attempted to bring his case within the second sub-clause of clause 23. He intimated the fact that the house was available though he did not make his intimation in the form prescribed and later took advantage of the lack of orders by the 15th November to induct a tenant. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the house was placed in his bands unconditionally for repairs with the allotment in favour of K.C. Sharma withdrawn is erroneous. He might have understood it that may, but that was neither the intention of the Additional Collector nor the order that he had passed. The allotment in favour of K.C. Sharma not only stood in point of fact but as a matter of law also because till the 16th November no order cancelling the allotment in favour of K.C. Sharma had been made. The occasion, therefore, for the application of sub-clause (2) of clause 23 did not arise till the 16th November when K.C. Sharma declined to take the house. The house was vacant on the 16th November from K.C. Sharma's tenancy imposed on it to be re-allotted and it was so allotted on the same day to Shrimati Trivedi. 10. There being no omission on the part of the Additional Collector to pass an order within 15 days after intimation of the house having fallen vacant, the benefit of the provision claimed by the petitioner is not available. 11. The same thing obtained on 7th April, 1958 when Shrimati Trivedi declined to take the house. The same day an order allotting the premises to Shri S.B. Sen was made. 12. It was contended by the petitioner that the house cannot be allotted in this manner to a succession of tenants. We find nothing to prohibit it because action can be taken both under clause 23 and clause 24 of the Rent Control Order. Clause 24 is not dependent upon any action of the landlord and the action there taken is suo moto with liberty to the landlord to apply for reconsideration of the order. On both the occasions, namely, when the house was allotted to Shrimati Trivedi and when it was allotted to Shri S.B. Sen, the action was not under clause 23 but under clause 24. On both the occasions, namely, when the house was allotted to Shrimati Trivedi and when it was allotted to Shri S.B. Sen, the action was not under clause 23 but under clause 24. The latter clause enables the authority making the allotment to act suo moto on knowing that the house is vacant. On both the occasions the Additional Collector learnt that the house was vacant because the person to whom the house had been allotted by him before he had declined to take it and he made the order instantly on the two occasions allotting it to a fresh person. All this therefore, was in order because no lack of bona fides has been suggested against the action. Only its legality has been questioned. 13. It may be pointed out that on no occasion did the landlord claim the house for his own residence. He only wanted to let it out to tenants of his choice. The considerations, therefore, which have to be taken into account under clause 23 were not present and the land-lord could only succeed on the narrow ground of the Additional Collector not having acted within a fortnight after notice of the house having fallen vacant. The occasion for the application of the time limit arose on the first occasion when the house initially fell vacant but not thereafter. There was a continuity of allotment orders which were cancelled at the request of the allottees and the orders were passed under clause 24 forthwith. On both the occasions the petitioner made representations against the order of allotment as contemplated by clause 24 and on both the occasions his representations were rejected. On the last occasion the order of the Additional Collector brings out all the facts, and we find no error in it whether of fact or of law. 14. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/- . We however, order that the petitioner shall be allowed a month's lime to deliver the house to Shri S.B. Sen, failing which action as contemplated by the Rent Control Order can be taken against him. Petition dismissed.