ORDER S.G. Manchanda, J. - These two writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, arise out of the same facts, and are, therefore, consolidated and disposed of by a common order. The relied claimed is for the quashing of the order of the State Government dated the 26th August 1963, u/s 7Fofthe U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that order of the eviction passed u/s 7F (2) of the Act. 2. The facts leading up to these petitions are these. There is a house No. 23/17A on Shea Charan Lal Road Allahabad, which was owned by Sri. Mumtaz Ul Haq. A portion of gh(sic) house on the ground floor, which was a separate accommodation was in the tenancy of one Mr Ghosh. The latter had vacated the house on the 20th April 1962. The Petitioner moved an application for allotment of this accommodation mainly on the ground that he was a sub tenant of a certain portion of the accommodation from Mr. Ghosh and had stored some machinery therein. The landlord consented to this. Prior to this, however, the Respondent No. 3 Mr. Jai Ram Bhareava, had already applied for the allotment of the accommodation in his favour. By an order dated the 18th August 1962, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after beating the parties at great length, and perusing the affidavits filed by them, the report of the Rent Control Inspector dated the 3rd May 1962, and upon a local inspection made by the Rent Control Officer himself, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had not come with clean hands and his conduct had been far from satisfactory, and that he had entered into possession of the accommodation without an allotment order and so deserved to be evicted therefrom. The need of the Respondent No. 3 was found to be genuine and pressing. He, accordingly, rejected the application filed by the landlord under Rule 6 as well as the application of the Petitioner for allotment of the accommodation by his order dated the 18th August 1962. Pursuant to that order, on the same date, i.e. 18th August 1962 the land-lord was directed to let the accommodation to opposite party No. 3. There upon a detailed objection was filed by the Petitioner on the 8/10th September 1962, praying for the cancellation of this order. Pursuant to that order, on the same date, i.e. 18th August 1962 the land-lord was directed to let the accommodation to opposite party No. 3. There upon a detailed objection was filed by the Petitioner on the 8/10th September 1962, praying for the cancellation of this order. This application came to be disposed of on the 31st December 1962 by another Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who had succeeded the officer who had passed the earlier order and the allotment order dated the 18th August 1962. This Officer allowed ertain additional documentary evidence to be filed before him and took the view that the earlier order was (sic)ot rightly passed by his predecessor and therefore differing from it directed: Issue allotment order accordingly (sic) suppression of the previous allotment order dated the 18th August, 1962." An allotment order pursuant thereto was passed on the same day i.e. 31. 12.1962 in favour of the Petitioner. Against this order the opposite party No. 3 went up in revision to the State Government u/s 7F of the Act. In the meanwhile the Petitioner who claimed that he was already in occupation as a subtenant under the previous tenant, Mr. Ghosh, had taken formal possession from the landlord who was obviously supporting him. The State Government, after calling for the objections of the Petitioner, who filed his objection in great detail, disposed of the revision by allowing it and cancelled the allotment order dated the 31st December, 1962 in favour of the Petitioner. No express order, however, was passed restoring the allotment order dated the 18th August 1962. in favour of opposite party No. 3. The order u/s 7F of the Act was passed on the 26th August 1963. Apparently, on the receipt of that order a notice dated the 30th August 1963, was issued by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to the Petitioner which reads: I an directed to inform you to appear before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad on 9.9.1965 at 2 p.m. in connection with a case of allotment in respect of house No. 23/17A, Shiv Charan Lal Road. 3. This notice does not specify the section under which it was issued or the exact purpose for which. the presence of the Petitioner was required on the 9th September 1963, by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 3. This notice does not specify the section under which it was issued or the exact purpose for which. the presence of the Petitioner was required on the 9th September 1963, by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Thereafter an order on the 30th September 1963, was passed wherein the past history of the case was recapitulated in brief and it was observed: After due consideration the allotment order passed in favour of Sri Wahid Husain was quashed by the State Government and Sri Jairam Bhargava got success. The allotment order dated 18th August 1962 stands restored. Proceedings upto the stage of the notice u/s 7A(1) have already been taken. Issue notice u/s 7A(2) put up on 3.10.1963. On that very date the notice u/s 7A(2) was issued which runs: Whereas you have occupied house No. 23/17A, Sheo Charanlal Road without any allotment/release order and your reply to notice u/s 7A(i) being unsatisfactory has been rejected you are hereby directed u/s 7A(ii) of the Rent Control Act to vacate the said house by 3.10.1963 and deliver its possession to Sri Jai Ram Bhargava the allottee, failing which you are liable to be evicted from the aforesaid house u/s 7/A(iii) of the Act. 4. On the 3rd October 1963, the Petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court as well as a revision u/s 7A (4) to the Commissioner. As the fact of filing the revision was not disclosed the result was that the stay order which this Court had granted was cancelled and the Petitioner was evicted from the accommodation in dispute. 5. Four contentions have been raised by Mr. S.C. Khare, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. They are (1) That the order of the State Government u/s 7F is an incomplete order for though it set aside the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner, but as no order was passed restoring the allotment order in favour of opposite party No. 3 no effect could be given to it and no proceedings u/s 7A(2) could have been taken. (2) That in any event the Petitioner having obtained possession under a valid allotment order proceedings u/s 7A(2) did not lie. (3) That the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner having exhausted itself by virtue of the Petitioner having obtained possession pursuant there to further proceedings by way of revision to the State Government u/s 7F did not lie. (2) That in any event the Petitioner having obtained possession under a valid allotment order proceedings u/s 7A(2) did not lie. (3) That the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner having exhausted itself by virtue of the Petitioner having obtained possession pursuant there to further proceedings by way of revision to the State Government u/s 7F did not lie. (4) That the order of allotment being an administrative order could be cancelled or reviewed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the order in favour of opposite party No. 3 having been cancelled the allotment order made in favour of the Petitioner was a valid order. 6. Ordinarily speaking, Mr. Khare is right in his submission that ah order of allotment simpliciter is an administrative order which can be varied, altered or cancelled upto the stage of possession not having been taken, pursuant to an order of the Rent: Control and Eviction Officer. It is also not denied that if there is fraud, misrepre sentation or collusion the order of allotment can be cancelled. It is, however, contended that under no circumstances can an allotment order be treat ed as a quasi judicial order. It is not possible to accede to this contention. A Division Bench of this Court in Property Agents v. Shamsher Bahadur (1) 1964 ALJ 752) has laid down, following the dicta of the supreme Court that whether an order is an administrative or a, quasi judicial order will depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. An order will be a quasi judicial order if (1) there is his between the parties or (2) when the authority is required by the Statute or by the Rules to Act in a. judicial or quasi judicial manner or (3) when the nature of the duties and functions to be exercised by the authority are such that they cannot be exercised in a judicial or quasi judicial manner. In the present case there was certainly alis between the parties. There was a heated tripartite contest between the landlord aad Petitioner on the one side and opposite party No. 3 as to in whose favour the allotment should be made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In the present case there was certainly alis between the parties. There was a heated tripartite contest between the landlord aad Petitioner on the one side and opposite party No. 3 as to in whose favour the allotment should be made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. After considering the entire material on the record, he passed an order alloting the premises in favour of the opposite party No. 3 and as such, it would satisfy the requirements of a quasi judicial order. Once it is held that the order of allotment in favour of the Petitioner was a quash judicial order, then it necessarily, follows that in the absence of any pre vision in the Act for a review, the order passed by the successor Rent Control and Eviction Officer canceling the allotment in favour of the Petitioner was one without jurisdiction. Mr. Khare, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that if that be the position, then the remedy of the opposite party No. 3 was to have come u(sic) to this Court forthwith under Article 23 of the Constitution to have that season allotment order quashed. That n(sic) having been done, it is too late in t(sic) day for the opposite party No. 3 challenge that order on the ground want of jurisdiction. There is sor force in this contention but it cannot be said that the remedy provided Section 7F was not open to the oppos party No. 3. The Rent Control a Eviction Officer had directed the landlord to let the premises to the Petitioner and against such an order a revision was competent u/s 7F of the Act. 7. The contention that the State Government, while setting aside the order of allotment in favour of the Petitioner did not at the same time direct the restoration of the allotment in favour of opposite party No. 3, and, therefore, the Petitioner could not have been evicted from the accommodation has no force. The Petitioner had asked for both the relief's in his application u/s 7F i.e. the cancellation of the order of allotment in favour of the Petitioner and the restoration of the allotment order in his favour but the State Government though it allowed the petition, did not in specific terms say that the order of allotment in his favour would stand restored. The order of the State Government no doubt is a quasi judicial order but it does not mean that it is to be read like the judgment of a civil court. The order has, not to be read with the help of a micro scope but broadly. Taking into consideration both the prayers made in the application, and the order passed by the State Government u/s 7F, there cannot be much doubt that when the State Government was allowing the revision of the opposite party No. 3 it was allowing both the prayers claimed by him. Neither of the parties nor the Rent Control Officer was in any real doubt as to what was the substance and effect of the order of the State Government. The necessary implication of that order was the restoration of the allotment order in favour of the Petitioner. Even if the order restoring the allotment could be said not to be implicit in the order of the State Government then., too, it is difficult to see what grievance the Petitioner can have. At best the order of the State Government can be interpreted to mean that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was to reconsider and make a fresh allotment in favour of the Petitioner or any one else, that he so chooses to allot, but no allotment could have been made in favour of the Petitioner. In Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P. (2) ( AIR 1962 S.C. 113 ), though in somewhat different connection, the case there being one of challenge to the orders passed by the State Government under the Motor Vehicles Act, it was observed: If the right of the Appellant to ply his buses is lawfully extinguished under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, he is not entitled to maintain an appeal challenging the right of the State Transport undertaking to ply their buses with or without permits. Nor is any fundamental right of the Appellant infringed by the State Transport Undertaking plying its buses without permits. In the present case also the allotment in favour of the Petitioner having been cancelled, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by any irregular allotment that may be made in favour of opposite party No. 3 pursuant to the order of the State Government. In the present case also the allotment in favour of the Petitioner having been cancelled, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by any irregular allotment that may be made in favour of opposite party No. 3 pursuant to the order of the State Government. It was next contended that the Petitioner having obtained possession pursuant to an allotment order passed in his favour by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, after having cancelled the assessment order in favour of the opposite party No. 3 and possession pursuant thereto having been obtained, the order had spent itself and was no longer open to challenge u/s 7F. Reliance was placed mainly on a decision of Dhavan, J. in Peer Bux v. Karam Ghand (3) (1963 ALJ 725) where it was laid down that after an allotment order has been implemented it exhausts itself and there is nothing to cancel. Gangeshwar Prasad, J. in a later decision m Fatima v. Sakina Bibi (4) (S.A. No. 3256 of 1961 decided on 8.7.64) pointed out that a division Bench decision of this Court in Suraj Narain v. District Magistrate Kanpur (5) (1958 AWR 432; was not brought to the notice of Dhavan, J. where it was laid down that an allotment order can be modified or cancelled if there is fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, ignorance of the real facts, collusion or inadvertence. He therefore held that an allotment does-not always necessarily exhaust itself and it was not possible to say that the moment an allottee takes possession the allotment order is no longer subject to the revisional powers of the State Government specifically provided u/s 7F of the Act. The Foil Bench decision of this Court, strongly relied upon by Mr. Khare in Bashi Ram v. Mantri Lal (6) ( 1964 AWR 617 ) is clearly distinguishable. That was a case where the interpretation of the opening words of Section 3 of the U.P. Rent Control and Eviction Act were considered. On the specific wordings of that section it was held that once a permission has been granted by the District Magistrate for the filing of the suit of ejectment against a tenant and pursuant thereto a suit has in fact been filed a subsequent order pas-scd-u'nder Section 7F by the State Government will be ineffective so far as the proceedings in the civil court are concerned. It is true that it the ratio of this Full Bench decision is stretched and made universally applicable then only will it be possible to accept Mr. Khare's contention that once an allotment order is passed and the allottee has taken possession thereunder the powers of revision provided u/s 7F to the State Government stand abrogated and are rendered ineffective. There is, however, no warrant for taking the Full Bench to have decided anything more than the specific question which was raised before it which was, the interpretation of Section 3 of the Act. In any case, no such objection to the jurisdiction of the State Govt. to decide the application u/s 7F was taken by the Petitioner and, therefore, it is not open to him, after he had taken a chance before the State Govt. and lost, to urge that the State Govt. had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision, much less, to make the allotment order in his favour. It is well settled that objection to jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest opportunity and before the authority whose jurisdiction is being challenged and such a question cannot subsequently be allowed to be raised for the first time in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. See Pannalal Binjraj Vs. Union of india (UOI), AIR 1957 SC 397 , Kailash Nath Halwai v. Registrar Cooperative Societies (8) ( 1960 AWR 38 ). 8. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Khare relying upon Krishna Chandra Sharma v. State of U.P. (9) (1962 AWR 304) that no order u/s 7A(1) or (2) could have been passed against him as he was not a person in occupation of the accommodation in contravention of the order passed u/s 7. According to him, he is in fact a person in occupation of the accommodation u/s 7(2) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act. Even if the order u/s 7(2) is set aside by the State Government u/s 7F it will not entitle the Rent Control arid Eviction Officer to evict him u/s 7A(2) of the Act. In a latter decision in R.K. Khandelwal v. Motilal Chawla (10) ( 1964 AWR 36 ) a distinction was drawn between a person in occupation under an allotment order, but which has been subsequently cancelled and in occupation before an allotment order is passed. In a latter decision in R.K. Khandelwal v. Motilal Chawla (10) ( 1964 AWR 36 ) a distinction was drawn between a person in occupation under an allotment order, but which has been subsequently cancelled and in occupation before an allotment order is passed. In the latter case, it was held that the occupation, even if it had commenced earlier if it is inconsistent with an allotment order under which another person has been given a right to occupy it, it would be an occupation in contravention and therefore the provisions of Section 7A would be applicable. 9. In any event, as the allotment in favour of the Petitioner has been cancelled, and he has been evicted, he cannot be put back in possession without an allotment order in his favour. A person in possession, without an allotment order would be liable to ejectment. Therefore, in these circumstances this Court would not be justified in interfering in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction with the order of the State Government and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. In the ultimate analysis, when all is said and done, the order of the State Government canceling the order of allotment in favour of the Petitioner, is a fair and just one and I would, even if there was some illegality, decline to exercise my extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the Petitioner. 10. For the reasons given above, the petition is rejected but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.