JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.5.1961 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur, recalling his order of the allotment of the premises of 18.11.1960 passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case which are relevant to the questions in controversy are briefly stated: Shrimati Alakh Nanda Devi, respondent No. 3 is the owner of the premises No. 50/18 Naughara, Kanpur. One Suraj Bali Misra deceased, whose legal heirs have been brought on the record as opposite parties Nos. 2/1 to 2/7, was admittedly the tenant of the premises. On 8.11.1960 the petitioners put in an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the allotment of the premises in their favour on the ground that at that time it was in possession of one Jagannath who did not hold any allotment order in his favour and that the petitioners needed it for setting up a cloth shop in the premises. An inquiry was made in this connection by the Rent Control Inspector who submitted a report (Annexure II to the petition) indicating therein that Jagannath was occupying the premises since about four months without an allotment order and his actual possession was that of a trespasser. He also reported that "the premises were in the tenancy of one Sri Suraj Bali who has left the accommodation. The owner has given this intimation in writing and has got no objection if the premises are allotted to the applicant under rule 7". It appears that on the basis of this report an order of allotment was passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 16.11.1960 and the petitioners obtained possession on 23.11.1960. 3. On 6.12.1960 applications were made to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by the landlady and also by Suraj Bali Misra praying for the cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that it had been obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. Smt. Alakh Nanda Devi filed an affidavit asserting that she had never consented to the allotment of the premises in favour of the petitioners and that she had never put her thumb-impression on any paper indicating her consent. Suraj Bali also asserted that his tenancy was subsisting, that his shop was in his possession and that the misrepresentations were made in that regard by the petitioners for obtaining allotment in their favour. Suraj Bali also asserted that his tenancy was subsisting, that his shop was in his possession and that the misrepresentations were made in that regard by the petitioners for obtaining allotment in their favour. The Rent Control Officer, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after hearing them, came to the conclusion that "in this case fraud and misrepresentation have been perpetrated from beginning to end and in these circumstances the allotment order cannot be allowed to stand." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the aforesaid order on a variety of grounds. He has urged that the Rent Control Officer had no jurisdiction to recall his previous order after the petitioners had taken possession of the premises in pursuance of it. His further contention is that there was no material before the Rent Control Officer on the basis of which he could give a finding that the order of allotment was obtained by mis-representation and fraud. Finally, learned counsel contends that the deed of partnership between Suraj Bali and Jagannath was a fictitious document and the Rent Control Officer has erred in law in relying on the same. Learned counsel contends that even if the document is assumed to be genuine, it amounted to an illegal sub-letting by the tenant without the consent of the landlady and, therefore, as tenant himself was no found in possession of the premises on the date of inspection, the possession thereon of his partner being illegal, the premises were vacant in the eye of law on the date of allotment. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decisions of this Court reported in 1955 A.L.J. at page 252 1961 A.L.J. page 827 1962 A.L.J. 553, and 1964 A.L.J. 20. I however, find no substance in these arguments. 5. Before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer a registered partnership deed between Suraj Bali and Jagannath executed in March 1957 was filed by Suraj Bali which showed that a partnership business was being carried on in the premises since that year. Certain papers from the Income Tax Department which were produced before him indicated that the partnership has been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities as genuine and the profits were being assessed in the hands of the partners according to the terms and conditions of the deed. Certain papers from the Income Tax Department which were produced before him indicated that the partnership has been accepted by the Income Tax Authorities as genuine and the profits were being assessed in the hands of the partners according to the terms and conditions of the deed. The Rent Control Officer, therefore, held that the report of the Inspector that Jagannath, one of the partners, was occupying the shop for the last four months was obviously based on wrong information. The landlady and his son-in-law Prem Narain were present before the Rent Control Officer. When the Inspector was asked to identify them, he could not recognise the lady and "vehemently asserted that Sri Prem Narain was not the same man who had written down the alleged consent of the landlady at the time of his enquiry." Therefore, the Rent Control Officer held that "there appears some conspiracy in this respect also as the real landlady does not seem to have been brought in the picture before the allotment and every thing done on her behalf was farzi." He further observed that none of the allottees ever appeared in person before him and that "even a layman can say that the papers filed under the signature of Devi Dutta Mall have been signed by two different persons. As regards the other co-allottee Sri Subir Kumar he is said to be none other than the son of the aforesaid Sri Jagannath and it is why his parentage has been concealed in the allotment application." I am, therefore, satisfied that there was enough material before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for coming to a conclusion that his previous order of allotment had been obtained on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud. 6. Once it is held that the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer regarding his previous order having been obtained on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation is correct, there can be no legal bar in his recalling the previous order. 6. Once it is held that the finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer regarding his previous order having been obtained on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation is correct, there can be no legal bar in his recalling the previous order. In the case of Mahabir Prasad v. The District Magistrate, Kanpur 1955 A.L.J. 252 which has been relied upon by the learned counsel, the Court was pleased to hold that "after possession has been taken over by the allottee in pursuance of the allotment order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's power comes to an end (except in a case where order was secured by fraud, misrepresentation of facts or some other undesirable method)." This decision is not of any help to the petitioners. 7. The decision in the case of Radha Kishan v. Data Ram and another 1961 A.L.J. 827 is distinguishable on facts. There the case for eviction of the defendants was filed by the landlord and therefore it was held that when defendant No. 1 took defendant No. 2 as a partner his act amounted to the subletting of the shop without the consent of the landlord and the transaction must be deemed to be subletting within the meaning which must be given to that phrase used in Clause (e) if sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Here, in this case the landlady is challenging the allotment in favour of the petitioners. The decision in the case of R.K. Khandelwal v. M.L. Chawla 1964 A.L.J. 20 is not an authority for the proposition that even if an order has ben secured on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, it cannot be recalled or cancelled by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Hon'ble Chief Justice while delivering the judgment of the Bench has observed that "in a proceeding under Section 7-A the allotment order passed in his favour cannot be attacked and cannot be set aside. The District Magistrate has only to decide whether the person in occupation should be called upon to vacate and whether he should be evicted or not; he is not called upon to decide whether the allotment order is valid or correct or not and he has no jurisdiction to cancel it. The District Magistrate has only to decide whether the person in occupation should be called upon to vacate and whether he should be evicted or not; he is not called upon to decide whether the allotment order is valid or correct or not and he has no jurisdiction to cancel it. Even if he finds that an allotment order was invalid it is enough for him to refrain from passing an order under sub-Section (2) calling upon the person in occupation to vacate within a certain time..........." 8. The question of jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel, on the other hand, it covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Suraj Narain v. District Board, Kanpur 1958 A.L.J. p. 283. In that case a Division Bench was pleased to hold that "if the Officer who passed the order finds that the order has been passed by mistake or under misapprehension of facts and should not have been passed at all there is no reason why he should not have the power to correct his own mistake, and to set matters right. The order does not become sacrosanct and immune from re-consideration simply because the allottee managed to get possession on its basis and was not himself guilty of fraud or misrepresentation." Thus it is obvious that the impugned order does not suffer from a lack of jurisdiction or from an error apparent on the face of record. 9. The petition is dismissed with costs. The stay order dated 24.5.61 as affirmed on 6.9.1961 stands vacated.