ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing three orders of the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur, passed for the allotment of a house belonging to the applicant to the opponent Dwivedi. One Shri Mishra was in occupation till 31st August 1959 as a tenant of a portion of a building belonging to the Petitioner. When he was about to vacate, the Rent Controlling Authority passed an order on 31st August 1959 allotting the portion to Shri Rangnekar, Deputy Collector, Raipur On 4th September 1959, the Petitioner informed the Rent Controlling Authority that Shri Rangnekar did not intend to occupy the house and that he did not wish to let out the accommodation to any one as he needed it for himself. Thereafter by a letter dated the 9th September 1959, the Rent Controlling Authority informed the Petitioner that it was proposed to allot the accommodation to the opponent Dwivedi, a student of Mining College, Raipur, and invited him to file his objections to the proposed allotment. In reply, the Petitioner repeated that he had no desire to let out the house as he wanted it for his home requirements. On 10th September 1959 the Rent Controlling Authority made an order allotting the portion of the house to Dwivedi. The Petitioner again unsuccessfully represented to the Rent Controlling Authority against the allotment. The representation was rejected on 19th September 1959 by the Rent Controlling Authority on the ground that the Petitioner's request could not be entertained. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner questioned the validity of the order of allotment on the ground that it was made in utter violation of the provisions of Section 18 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955, inasmuch as no general or special order contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 18 was ever issued to the Petitioner; and that he was never given any opportunity to urge his objections against the letting out of the accommodation to any one as also to the intended allottee. In our judgment, the contention advanced by the Learned Counsel must be given effect to. In our judgment, the contention advanced by the Learned Counsel must be given effect to. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 runs as follows:- The Rent Controlling Authority may, on his motion or on the application of any person, by general or special order, require a landlord to give information in writing of any accommodation falling vacant, of which he is the landlord and also require him to let or not to let such accommodation to a certain person: Provided that the Rent Controlling Authority shall, before deciding that the accommodation be let to a certain person, provide reasonable opportunity to the landlord for submitting and proving his objections, if any, regarding the person proposed. It will be seen from the wording of this provision that before making any order of allotment the Rent Controlling Authority is first required to make an order against the landlord asking him to give information in writing of any accommodation falling vacant and to provide a reasonable opportunity to the landlord for submitting and proving his objections regarding the person to whom the accommodation is intended to be let out. The Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to make any order of allotment under Section 18 unless the accommodation has fallen vacant. It is for the purpose of determining whether the accommodation has or has not fallen vacant that Sub-section (1) makes it necessary for the Rent Controlling Authority to call upon the landlord "to give information in writing of any accommodation falling vacant". If, therefore, a landlord to whom an order under Sub-section (1) is issued submits that the accommodation in question has not fallen vacant, then the Rent Controlling Authority is bound to adjudicate on the vacancy of the accommodation. Now, an accommodation may be in the occupation of the landlord himself or may be in the occupation of any person as a tenant. If the landlord needs the accommodation that is already in his occupation or the one in the occupation of a tenant when he leaves that accommodation, it cannot be said that for the purposes of Section 18 the accommodation has fallen vacant. The expression "accommodation falling vacant" means that the accommodation on occupation of the landlord himself or a tenant is not intended to be used by the landlord for his own purposes but is intended to be let out to a tenant. The expression "accommodation falling vacant" means that the accommodation on occupation of the landlord himself or a tenant is not intended to be used by the landlord for his own purposes but is intended to be let out to a tenant. From the mere fact that the landlord had once let out the accommodation to a person, it does not necessarily follow that when the tenant quits that accommodation the landlord does not need it or intends to let out the accommodation again. The Rent Controlling Authority was, therefore, bound to hear the Petitioner's objection as regards his own requirement of the accommodation and adjudicate on it. No doubt, under the Act landlord has the remedy of instituting a suit for ejectment on the ground that he needs the rented premises for his own use. But this does not preclude him from urging his own requirement in proceedings under Section 18. The Rent Controlling Authority proceeded on the assumption that once an accommodation has been let out, the landlord is for ever committed to let out the accommodation to any person and that whenever any accommodation in the occupation of a tenant falls vacant the landlord can submit objections only with regard to the suitability or unsuitability of the intended allottee. On a careful consideration of the matter, we do not think that the scope of objections that a landlord can submit, is so narrow. 6. Here the Rent Controlling Authority did not make any order calling upon the landlord to intimate whether the accommodation in question has fallen vacant. The Rent Controlling Authority also refused to entertain the Petitioner's objection that he did not intend to let out the accommodation as it was needed for his own purposes. That being so, the order of allotment made in favour of opponent No. 2 cannot be sustained. For these reasons, this petition is allowed and the orders of the Rent Controlling Authority allotting the house to opponent Dwivedi are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioner. Petition allowed