JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Syed Qasim Husain who is the landlord of the premises in suit. 2. The Petitioner was employed in the Education Department as an Assistant Master in the Government Higher Secondary School, Pratapgarh. He retired from Govt. service in July 1952, but he was re employed as Principal in the Higher Secondary School Shahganj, Pratapgarh. He worked there till July 1958. He wanted to establish his family after his retirement at Allahabad and he had purchased a house in the year 1940, No. 117, Chak, Allahabad. After his final retirement his house was not vacant. He put up with his father in law, Wasi Ahmad, who had been residing in the house fell into arrears of rent. Therefore a suit was brought by the Petitioner for ejectment. It was decreed on 20-2-1953. On 25-21958, i.e. soon after the decree for ejectment was passed, the Petitioner made an application for the release of the house in his favour as the same was to fall vacant. Three days later, on 23-2-1958 he made another application detailing his needs. The Inspector of the Rent Control and Eviction Office made an inspection and gave his report that the need of the Petitioner was genuine. 3. In the meanwhile Wasi Ahmad, who had lost the case, in the trial court, filed an appeal. A compromise was filed and it was agreed that Wasi Ahmad would vacate on 1-9-1958. The Petitioner gave yet another application for the release of his house in his favour, which was likely to fall vacant on y 1-8-1958. The Rent Control and Eviction officer passed an order that the file should be put up when the house fell vacant. 4. It appears that Wasi Ahmad surreptitiously got an application made to the Distt. Magistrate by one Sukhdeo Prasad Singh for the allotment of the house and Wasi Ahmad made an endorsement that he was vacating on 1-9-58. So the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, ignoring the previous application of the Petitioner. On 13-10 58 the Petitioner filed a representation to the State Government u/s 7F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, for setting aside the allotment order and for the release of the house to the Petitioner. The State Govt. On 13-10 58 the Petitioner filed a representation to the State Government u/s 7F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, for setting aside the allotment order and for the release of the house to the Petitioner. The State Govt. after calling for the record and after taking the written statement of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, set aside the order dated 1 9-1958 in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad and released the house in favour of the Petitioner under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Rent Control and Eviction Act. This order was communicated to the Petitioner by a letter dated 14-2-59. Thereafter the Petitioner asked the opposite party, No. 2, Sukhdeo Prasad Singh to vacate the house and give possession to the Petitioner, but he paid no heed. On 20-4-59 the Petitioner made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer requesting him to comply with the order of the State Government and get the house vacated u/s 7A of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer offered several accommodations to Sukhdeo Prasad Singh but he refused to accept any and to vacate the premises. The Petitioner thereafter made another application on 24-6-59 to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer requesting him to take action u/s 7A. But the Rent Control and Eviction Officer informed the Petitioner that no action u/s 7A of the Act could be taken again t opposite party No. 2 and the Petitioner was asked to seek his remedy by way of a suit. Aggrieved by that order the Petitioner has come to this Court. 5. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party that since there was an alternate remedy by way of revision to the Commr. or the State Govt. the writ petition should not be entertained. Filing of revision has not been held by this Court as well as by other Courts to be an alternate and efficacious remedy. Revision is not a matter of right in which the person who files the revision can claim a relief. Under the circumstances I do not think that that would be a bar to the filing of this writ petition. 6. Revision is not a matter of right in which the person who files the revision can claim a relief. Under the circumstances I do not think that that would be a bar to the filing of this writ petition. 6. On behalf of the Petitioner it has been urged that since Sukhdeo Prasad Singh had been put in possession by order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and if that order has been set aside, it should be deemed that there was never an order of allotment and therefore, possession of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh was not in accordance with the Rent Control and Eviction Act, hence Section 7A would apply. 7. On behalf of the opposite party it has been contended that there are only two contingencies when Section 7A would apply. The first is that when a vacancy of accommodation is required to be reported and is not so reported, the District Magistrate can take action. The second contingency is that when an order requiring an accommodation to be let or not to be let has been duly passed and any person has in contravention of that order occupied the accommodation then he can call upon the person in occupation to show cause within the time to be fixed why he should not be evicted therefrom. 8. So far as the first contingency is concerned, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the opposite party that it does not arise in the present case. And he further says that the present occupation has not been in contravention of any order passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 and therefore, Section 7A would not apply and the only remedy of the Petitioner was by way of a suit, as has been held by the RC and EO. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on three decisions of this Court. 9. The case of Lala Krishna Chand Jain v. The District Magistrate Dehra Dun 1956 AWR 626 is a case where a learned single judge of this Court held as follows: Section 7A of the UP (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act authorises the RC and EO or the District Magistrate to take action only if there has been a valid order u/s 7(1) and the person is in occupation in contravention of such an order. Section 7(1) contemplates an order by the proper authority directing the landlord to let or not to let accommodation to any person. It was argued by learned Counsel that here there is no order in favour of the Petitioner u/s 7 and therefore, there is no question of any contravention of an order u/s 7 and Section 7A will not apply to the facts of the present case. 10. It is true that when a house is released in favour of the landlord there is no order of allotment and there should not bean order of allotment in his favour. But Section 7 does not speak of any allotment. It speaks of an order "to let" or "not to let" a house to a tenant, which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant, Allotment order means an order of allotting. But if the house is not lei to a tenant but is released in favour of the landlord, then it amounts to an order not to let. The order, in any event, will be u/s 7. There is no provision apart from Section 7 under which the RC and EO could release the house in favour of the landlord. The only section under which he purports to act and he has actually acted, is Section 7 where he directs letting of a house to some body or he releases the house in favour of the landlord. 11. The second case relied upon by learned Counsel for the opposite party was Roop Kishore v. RC and EO 1959 AWR 163 . It also deals with a case u/s 7A and a learned single judge of this Court held: The language of Section 7A shows that it is intended to deal with unauthorised occupiers in two situations. First, if an accommodation falls vacant and neither the landlord nor the tenant informs the authorities, but the tenancy is filled up by a private unauthorised arrangement, the RC and EO has the power to initiate the proceedings u/s 7A against the unauthorised occupants. Secondly, after the passing of an allotment order the allottee may find some person in unauthorised occupation of the premises allotted to him in this situation too the RC and EO has been given the power to turn out the unauthorised occupier and put the allottee in possession. 12. Secondly, after the passing of an allotment order the allottee may find some person in unauthorised occupation of the premises allotted to him in this situation too the RC and EO has been given the power to turn out the unauthorised occupier and put the allottee in possession. 12. According to my interpretation of Section 7 when a house is released in favour of a landlord that order is an order u/s 7, in effect letting it in favour of the landlord and if the landlord finds that somebody else is in unauthorised possession then certainly he can ask the RC and EO to take action u/s 7A. Thus the present case would come under the second category, as mentioned by the learned single judge of the above authority. 13. The last case relied upon by learned Counsel was Kali Prasad Basu v. RC and EO AIR (1959) 167. In that case there had been first an allotment order in favour of one person and then another allotment in favour of another person. It was held that the first allottee would not be dispossessed u/s 7A. The facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of the present case. 14. In the present case, it is no doubt true that there had been a valid allotment in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh. But that order had been set aside by the State Govt. and if one order is set aside by a higher authority, it would be deemed that this order never existed and the allotment initially made would be deemed to be invalid from its very inception. Therefore there would be no allotment order in favour of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh and the house would stand released in favour of Oasim Husain. He was, therefore, entitled to request the Rc and EO to act u/s 7A. 15. It has further been contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party that when Sukhdeo Prasad Singh came into possession, his possession was a valid one and it cannot be said to be an unauthorised possession. After the order having been set aside by the State Government the possession of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, would be in effect "in contravention of the order" and therefore, his initial valid possession would not be of any avail to him. 16. After the order having been set aside by the State Government the possession of Sukhdeo Prasad Singh, would be in effect "in contravention of the order" and therefore, his initial valid possession would not be of any avail to him. 16. Apart from this fact, if a person, who should not have been in possession, has been put in possession by the RC and EO purporting to act u/s 7 of the Act and that order is set aside, then, apart from Section 7A, I think there would be an inherent jurisdiction in the RC and EO to place the parties in their proper positions. 17. I would therefore, allow the petition and quash the order of the RC and EO dated 4-7-59 and direct him to act in accordance with law. The Petitioner is entitled to his costs from opposite party No. 2.