JUDGMENT Dhavan, J. - This is a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order passed by the RC and EO, Agra, on 20-11-1956, alloting the Petitioner's house to Sri A. C. Nanda, Income Tax Officer, Agra, Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the Distt. Magisrate and the RC and EO, Agra, to dispossess Mr. A. C. Nanda from the house in dispute and put the Petitioner in possession. 2. At the very outset it may be stated that the second relief has become infructuous. Mr. G. P. Tandon Learned Counsel for Mr. A. C. Nanda, Respondent No. 3 states that his client had vacated the house. In the circumstances there is no question of dispossessing him even if the Petitioner succeeds in this petition. 3. The facts, as stated in the affidavit sworn by the Petitioner's husband, are these: The Petitioner is living in a small rented accommodation in Agra, which is insufficient for her use. She purchased the house in dispute in the hope that she would be able to live in it, if and when it fell vacant. Till lately the house was occupied by the then Income Tax Officer. When he was about to be transferred the Petitioner made an application u/R. 6 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules for permission to occupy the house in view of her needs. 4. Meanwhile the new Income Tax Officer who had been posted to Agra, also applied for the allotment of the house to him. 5. The RC and EO directed the Inspector to make an enquiry regarding the Petitioner's, application. The Inspector submitted his report which is annexure 'A' of the affidavit. He stated that the Petitioner had purchased a house for her residential purposes, and that her present accommodation consisted of one room, one kitchen and a small room on the ground floor ; which was used as a store room. He also reported that the Petitioner had no other house. 6. Subsequently the RC and EO made a report to the Distt. Magistrate in which he mentioned the fact that the Petitioner had represented to him that she had been unable to secure any suitable accommodation inspite of her best efforts. But he also pointed out that the Commr. He also reported that the Petitioner had no other house. 6. Subsequently the RC and EO made a report to the Distt. Magistrate in which he mentioned the fact that the Petitioner had represented to him that she had been unable to secure any suitable accommodation inspite of her best efforts. But he also pointed out that the Commr. of Income Tax had recently complained that his Officers were not allotted suitable accommodation by the RC and EO. He, therefore, apprehended that if the house was not allotted to the officers of the Income Tax Department it was bound "to have serious repurcussion." 7. Ultimately on 20-11-1956, the Distt. Magistrate passed the following order: The need of Sri Nanda Income Tax Officer is more pressing than that of the owner who has purchased this house recently. The application of Sri O. P. Sharma owner for the release of this house in his favour is rejected and the house is allotted to Sri A. C. Nanda I. T. O. 8. These facts have not been controverted by the Respondents. It is clear that the Petitioner's application u/R. 6 was rejected on considerations which are extraneous to R. 6. That Rule provides that when the Distt. Magistrate is satisfied that an accommodation which has fallen vacant is bonafide needed by the landlord for his personal occupation, the Distt. Magistrate may permit the landlord to occupy himself. It has been held in several decisions of this Court that the Distt. Magistrate must hold an enquiry as to whether the needs of the landlord are genuine. If he is satisfied that they are, he must ordinarily allow him to occupy the house. In the present case the Distt. Magistrate made a comparative estimate of the needs of the Income Tax Officer and that of the owner and held that the needs of the former were more pressing than that of the landlord. I am afraid this is not a proper approach to a decision u/R. 6. In these days of shortage of accommodation there must be hundreds of applicants in respect of a single accommodation whose needs may be more pressing than that of the owner. But the owner's rights u/R. 6 are based on the simple fact that he is the owner and is entitled to priority. In these days of shortage of accommodation there must be hundreds of applicants in respect of a single accommodation whose needs may be more pressing than that of the owner. But the owner's rights u/R. 6 are based on the simple fact that he is the owner and is entitled to priority. There is no question u/R.6 of the forming of a comparative estimate between the needs of the owner and that of any other person. The only question is whether the needs of the owner are bonafide or not. The order of the Distt. Magistrate dated 30 11-1956, contains an implied finding that the Petitioner's needs are genuine (though he held that the needs of Mr. Nanda are greater). On this finding he should ordinarily have permitted the Petitioner to occupy her own house. There is nothing in the order to suggest that there was extra-ordinary reasons to deviate from the general rule that a landlord should be allowed to occupy his house if his needs are genuine. After his implied finding that the Petitioner's needs were genuine, the Distt. Magistrate should have permitted her to occupy the house. If the Distt. Magistrate is allowed to enter into an inquiry into the comparative needs of the landlord and some other candidate, the landlord's right u/R. 6 will become illusory, for in these days of acute shortage of accommodation, there will always be some one whose needs are greater than the landlords. 9. Now that Mr. A. C. Nanda has left the house, there is no one left whose need can be considered to be more pressing than that of the Petitioner. I, therefore, hold that the Petitioner has made out a case u/R. 6 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules. Mr. Kakker contends that the Petitioner will be satisfied if she is permitted to occupy the house after Mr. A. C. Nanda has vacated it, if he has already not done by now. 10. I, therefore, direct that the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Distt. Magistrate to permit the Petitioner to occupy her house in view of the genuineness of her needs recognised by the Distt. Magistrate. 11. The petition is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.