ORDER Pandey, J. 1. This is petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing by certiorari- (i) a notice dated 28 July 1962 requiring the petitioner 2 to show cause why action should not be taken against him under section 39 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act); (ii) an order of the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority, Raipur, dated 22 August 1962 by which it decided to lodge complaints against the petitioner with a view to prosecuting them under sections 43 and 46 of the Act; and (iii) notices dated 22 August 1962 and 17 September 1962 requiring the petitioners 2 and 3 to vacate the disputed accommodation by a given date and warning them that, if they did not do so, they would be compelled so to do by use of force. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to forbear from dispossessing them, or any of them, from the accommodation. 2. The disputed accommodation situate in Raipur city, bearing Nos. 572 and 573, is owned by toe respondent 2. In the year 1949, it was allotted to Shewandas Dayaram. The petitioners alleged that the accommodation was allotted to the firm Shewandas Dayaram and was thereafter used by that firm for carrying on its business. After that business was discontinued, Dayaram (petitioner 1), this wife's brother Bhagwandas (petitioner 2) and his nephew Govindram (petitioner 3) have been residing therein and carrying on their business in the name of Bhagwandas Gagumal. Since the landlord (respondent 2) realised that he could not evict the petitioners, he induced the House Allotment Patwari to make a report dated 25 July 1962 to the effect that Dayaram (petitioner 1) had vacated the accommodation and that the respondents 2 and 3 had unauthorisedly taken possession thereof. Thereupon the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority allotted the accommodation to a Government servant (respondent 3) and took action evidenced by the impugned notices and the order dated 22 August 1962 against the petitioners 2 and 3. 3. Thereupon the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority allotted the accommodation to a Government servant (respondent 3) and took action evidenced by the impugned notices and the order dated 22 August 1962 against the petitioners 2 and 3. 3. In answer to the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 stated that, in 1949, the accommodation was allotted to two individuals, Shewandas and Dayaram, and not to any firm called "Shewandas Dayaram" It was further stated that while Shewandas had already vacated that part of the accommodation which was in his possession Dayaram voluntarily vacated the remaining part in April 1961 and thereafter the petitioners 2 and 3 unauthorisedly took possession of the accommodation. There was thus a contravention of clause (b) of section 12 (1) of the Act which was punishable under sections 43 and 46 of the Act As provided by section 39 (4) of the Act, the petitioners are also liable to be evicted, if necessary, by use of force. 4. Having heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that this petition should be partly allowed. We do not wish to say anything about most of the facts which are disputed. We must, however, notice that, even though it was specifically brought to the attention of the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority that Dayaram continued to reside and carry on business in the accommodation and he had allowed his relations to reside with him in that accommodation no opportunity was given to Dayaram to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in the matter. It will be strange if a tenant claiming to be in possession of an accommodation could be dispossessed by use of force without being given an opportunity to show that he is entitled to remain in possession and is not liable to be dispossessed. 5. We think that such action taken under section 39(4) of the Act on the ground that there is, or is likely to be, a contravention of the Act or the rules made hereunder is a quasi-judicial act attracting the rules of natural justice. This is, in fact, made clear by section 30 of the Act which reads: "30 (1). 5. We think that such action taken under section 39(4) of the Act on the ground that there is, or is likely to be, a contravention of the Act or the rules made hereunder is a quasi-judicial act attracting the rules of natural justice. This is, in fact, made clear by section 30 of the Act which reads: "30 (1). No order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Rent Controlling Authority under this Act without giving him a reason able opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been considered by the Rent Controlling Authority. (2) In all proceedings before it, the Rent Controlling Authority shall consider the question of costs and award, such costs to or against any party as the Rent Controlling Authority considers reasonable." In our opinion, the notices dated 22 August 1962 and 17 September 1962, in so far as they prejudicially affect the tenant Dayaram, cannot be sustained. 6. Realiance is placed upon clause (b) of section 12 (1) and section 39 (4) of the Act to justify the action taken against the petitioners 2 and 3. It appears to us that the provision contained in clause (b) of section 12 (1) merely specifies a ground on which a landlord may file a suit against his tenant fur his eviction. The corresponding rule of conduct which, if contravened is actionable under section 39 (4), is enacted in section 14 (1) of the Act which reads : "(1) No tenant shall, without the previous consent in writing of the landlord:- (a) Sublet the whole or any part of the accommodation held by him as a tenant; or (b) transfer or assign his rights in the tenancy or in any part thereof." To prevent or rectify contravention of this provision action udder section 39 (4) may no doubt be taken, but the person mainly concerned is the tenant and, if he has not contravened the above mentioned provision, no action can be taken against his relations whom he has permitted to live in the accommodation as his licensees. Considered in this light, the notice, dated 22 August 1962 and 17 September 1962 cannot be sustained even against the petitioners 2 and 3 for the reason that the tenant Dayaram was not given an opportunity to show cause against those orders. 7. Since the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority has already launched a prosecution against the petitioners, we would not interfere with the notice dated 28 July 1962 and the order dated 22 August 1962. But, in the view we have taken, the notices dated 22 August 1962 and 17 September 1962 are liable to be quashed. We may add that nothing that we have said in this order should be regarded as it habiting the Rent and Accommodation Controlling Authority from taking action under section 39 (4) of the Act after giving to Dayaram an opportunity, as postulated by section 30 of that Act, of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. 8. The petition partially succeeds and is to that extent allowed. The notices dated 22 August 1962 and 17 September 1962 are quashed. In other respects, the petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs and that security amount shall be refunded to the petitioners.