ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant challenges the validity of an order made on 20th June 1958 by the House Allotment Officer, Raipur, allotting House No. 3/536 situated in Chhotapara Ward, Raipur, to the opponent No. 2 Shri B.P. Dubey, and of a subsequent order made on 8th January 1959 relating to the allotment. The prayer of the petitioner is that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the two orders of the House Allotment Officer, Raipur. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Consolidation, at Raipur, in the month of August 1956. After his posting at Raipur, he was allotted the above named house belonging to Shri G.K. Ahmed. The order of allotment in favour of the petitioner was made under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The petitioner occupied the house from 1st May 1957. He was transferred to Gwalior in June 1958. On 20th June 1958 the House Allotment Officer, Raipur, made an order under clause 24-A of the Control Order of 1949 allotting the house to Shri Dubey, Superintendent of the Commissioner's Office, Raipur. The order mentioned that the possession of the house should be taken by Shri Dubey after it is vacated by the petitioner. The applicant states that he went to Gwalior alone leaving his family at Raipur and that he was not transferred to Gwalior but only sent there by the Government to clear off arrears of work in the Head Office at Gwalior. After the making of the allotment order in favour of Shri Dubey on 20th June 1958, the petitioner made an application before the House Allotment Officer praying that the allotment order should be cancelled inasmuch as he had not been transferred to Gwalior. This prayer was rejected by the House Allotment Officer on 8th January 1959. He, however, gave to the petitioner the latitude of vacating the house by 23rd January 1959. This prayer was rejected by the House Allotment Officer on 8th January 1959. He, however, gave to the petitioner the latitude of vacating the house by 23rd January 1959. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the applicant had not been transferred to Gwalior; that when he went to Gwalior in July 1958 he left his family at Raipur; that there was no likelihood of the house in the occupation of the petitioner at Raipur falling vacant at any time; and that, therefore, the House Allotment Officer had no jurisdiction to make any order under clause 24-A allotting the house to the opponent Shri Dubey. It was also said that the petitioner had not vacated the house when the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 came into force on 1st January 1959; that he was still in occupation of the house; that, therefore, the allotment order made by the House Allotment Officer on 20th June 1958 became inoperative after the coming into force of the new Act; and that on 8th January 1959 the House Allotment Officer could not make any order under the repealed Control Order of 1949. There is no substance in any of these contentions. The relevant provision of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, is clause 24-A which runs as follows:- Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 23, the Deputy Commissioner may, on information received to the effect that a house is likely to become vacant or available for occupation by a particular date, pass any order requiring the landlord of such house to let the same to any person holding an office of profit under the Union or State Government or to any person holding a post under the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board or to a displaced person or to an evicted person, and such order shall be complied with by the landlord unless the house does not become vacant or available for occupation within one month from the date of receipt by him of the order of the Deputy Commissioner or the landlord applies for the cancellation of the said order stating the grounds thereof. Under this clause, for the making of an allotment order in respect of any house by the competent authority it is not necessary that the house intended to be allotted should have actually fallen vacant on the date of the making of the order. The competent authority has jurisdiction to make an order of allotment under that clause if there is a likelihood of the house becoming vacant or available for occupation by a particular date. This condition of "likelihood" was fulfilled in the present case. When the house was allotted to the petitioner in 1957 he was in the service of the State. Now by clause 25 of the Control Order, 1949, it is inter alia provided that the tenancy of any person holding an office of profit under the Union or State Government and placed in possession of a house by an order under clause 23 or 24-A shall terminate on the date of the transfer of such a person or from the date on which such person ceases to hold an office of profit under the Union or State Government and that the said person shall vacate the house within seven days of the date of transfer or from the date of his ceasing to hold the office of profit. Admittedly the petitioner went to Gwalior in July 1958 and worked there in the Head Office until the date of his retirement. He was never reposted at Raipur. The petitioner has no doubt said that he was not transferred. But he did not place before us the order posting him at Gwalior to support his contention that his assignment to Gwalior was of a casual nature. On the other hand, from the order dated 8th January 1959 of the House Allotment Officer it appears that be made some enquiries from the Commissioner of Settlements about the posting of the petitioner at Gwalior and the Commissioner of Settlements replied saying that the petitioner's headquarters had been temporarily shifted to Gwalior. The transfer of the headquarter of the petitioner from Raipur to Gwalior, albeit temporarily, shows that the petitioner was transferred from Raipur. The location of his headquarter at Gwalior might be temporary. But that does not mean that the petitioner's headquarter remained at Raipur and that he was sent to Gwalior only for a short period for disposal of some special work. The location of his headquarter at Gwalior might be temporary. But that does not mean that the petitioner's headquarter remained at Raipur and that he was sent to Gwalior only for a short period for disposal of some special work. If then, as we think, the petitioner was transferred from Raipur in June 1958, it cannot be doubted that on the date of the making of the allotment order, namely, 20th June 1958, there was a likelihood of the house occupied by the petitioner at Raipur becoming vacant or being available for occupation by a particular date. The 'particular date' becomes clear from the provisions of clause 25 under which on his transfer to Gwalior the petitioner was under an obligation to vacate the house within seven days from the date of transfer. The date of the order of transfer was known and consequently the date on which under the statutory provisions the petitioner was required to vacate the house was also definite. It must be noted that for the purposes of clause 24-A it is not necessary that the house must actually fall vacant by any particular date. All that it requires is that there must be a likelihood of the house becoming vacant or being available for occupation by a particular date. It is true that the petitioner did not vacate the house within seven days of the order regarding his transfer and he was given time later on by the House Allotment Officer to vacate the house by 23rd January 1959. But if on the date on which the allotment order was passed all the conditions necessary for the making of that order under clause 24-A were fulfilled, that order cannot become illegal or characterised as one passed without jurisdiction merely because the person required to vacate the house by a particular date did not do so. It is altogether erroneous to suppose that if a valid order becomes inoperative on account of certain circumstances after its making, then the order becomes one as without jurisdiction from the very date of its making. Therefore the contention that the House Allotment Officer had no jurisdiction on 20th June 1958 to make any order under clause 24-A and that even if the order was valid on that date it became as one passed without jurisdiction after the coming into force of the new Act must be rejected. Therefore the contention that the House Allotment Officer had no jurisdiction on 20th June 1958 to make any order under clause 24-A and that even if the order was valid on that date it became as one passed without jurisdiction after the coming into force of the new Act must be rejected. The argument that because of the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 the House Allotment Officer had no jurisdiction to make any order on 8th January 1959 in connection with the allotment order which he had passed on 20th June 1958 is also untenable. The Madhya Pradesh Extension of Laws Act, 1958, no doubt repealed the Control Order of 1949. But section 6 of that Act expressly provided that the repeal shall not affect inter alia any right acquired or any obligation or liability incurred under any law so repealed or affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, obligation or liability. The petitioner acquired the right to occupy the house in 1957 when an allotment order in his favour was made under clause 24-A. With that right he also incurred the liability of vacating the house within seven days of the date of his transfer from Raipur or from the date of his ceasing to hold an office of profit under the State. As he was actually transferred in June 1958, this obligation against him became enforceable even before the coming into force of the new Act. The proceedings in which an allotment order in favour of the opponent Shri Dubey was made on 20th June 1958 were in a way proceedings for the enforcement of that obligation against the petitioner. That being so, under section 6 of the M.P. Extension of Laws Act, 1958 the coming into force of the new Act does not in any way affect the validity or operativeness of the allotment order made by the House Allotment Officer on 20th June 1958 or his jurisdiction to make an order on 8th January 1959 giving further time to the petitioner to vacate the house. The matter of the allotment of the house to the opponent Shri Dubey and the petitioner's right to continue to occupy the house would be governed by the Control Order, 1949, and not by the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955. The matter of the allotment of the house to the opponent Shri Dubey and the petitioner's right to continue to occupy the house would be governed by the Control Order, 1949, and not by the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1955. 6 In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to Shri Radhakishan Temple v. S.D.O., Sihora 1959 MPLJ 239 . That decision is not relevant here. That was a case in which the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the house was likely to be available for occupation from the mere fact that the landlord, had after obtaining from the Rent Controller permission to determine the tenancy on the ground of creation of a sub-tenancy, actually filed a suit against the tenant for ejectment. No doubt, the termination of a tenancy is one thing and the likelihood of any house falling vacant or becoming available for occupation by a particular date is quite different. The termination of tenancy by itself does not give any indication of the "likelihood" contemplated by clause 24-A. But here this likelihood has been inferred not from the fact of the termination of tenancy but from the statutory provision of clause 25 that the person in occupation shall vacate the house in his occupation within seven days of the date of his transfer. The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is Mohanlal v. Kailashchandra 1958 MPLJ 42. That was a case which related to clauses 22 and 23 of the Control Order, 1949, which are materially different from clause 24-A. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the allotment order of 20th June 1958 and the subsequent order made by the House Allotment Officer on 8th January 1959 cannot be assailed as being without jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. As none appeared on behalf of the opponents, there will be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.