ORDER S.C. Manchanda, J. - This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Suraj Narain Lal, who claimed to be the rightful allotted of the premises since 1948. The prayer is for the quashing of the order of the State Government dated the 28th December 1962 whereby the order of the Commissioner holding that there was no vacancy was set aside without recording a finding as to whether there-was a vacancy or not. 2. The facts briefly leading up to this petition are these. The Petitioner left Azamgarh some time in 1957, when his services with the Civil Supplies Department at Azamgarh were terminated and thereafter he obtained fresh employment as Judicial Moharrir in Tahsil Mau. According to him he did not vacate the accommodation and his family continued to reside therein, that he bad not abandoned the premises and there was animus reverend that he had continued to pay rent of the premises, and when his family had gone to visit him at Mau and the house was laying locked, the allotment order behind his back, on the 8th March 1960, was passed in favour of opposite party No. 6. No notice is said to have been given to the landlord or to the Petitioner before the said allotment was made. 3. On the 25th of April 1960 a notice u/s 7A(1) was issued. To this a reply was sent [annexure A to the Petition] wherein it was asserted that the accommodation was allotted in his name in the year 1948 or thereabout that the rent of the house was being paid by him, that he had not Vacated the house, nor did he intend to vacate it, that his family visits Azamgarh often and stays in the house, that house hold necessities are kept therein, and that he intended to settle down at Azamgarh after his retirement. 4. Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued another notice dated 6/11th May, 1960 u/s 7A(2) asking the Petitioner to vacate the house within three days of the receipt of the notice. 4. Thereafter the Rent Control and Eviction Officer issued another notice dated 6/11th May, 1960 u/s 7A(2) asking the Petitioner to vacate the house within three days of the receipt of the notice. According to the Petitioner the notice was only received on the 16th of May 1960, and before the three days elapsed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the 17th May I960, passed an order (annexure C) stating that as no reply had been received, the S.O. Kotwali was being asked to evict the Petitioner from the accommodation. The reason given in this order u/s 7A(3) was- Sri S.N. Srivastava, Moharrir Judicial Tehsil Karvi, District Banda, while he is living there since long along with his family and has un necessarily locked the above premises. According to Government instructions an official cannot keep a bourse in his possession after his transfer for more than a month or to the extent that he has been provided with a house at the place of his posting. The real reason, therefore, for holding the accommodation to be Vacant was not any provision of the Rent Control Act but some Government instructions It is manifest that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not apply his mind to the question of vacancy or likely vacancy as required by the provisions of the Rent Control Act untrammeled by any consideration of Govt. instructions. He presumed that the Petitioner was transferred, for which there was no basis, and he further presumed that he had been provided with a house at the place of his posting. The Section 7A(3) order was carried out, in absence of the Petitioner by the Police breaking open his lock on the 20th May, 1960 and placing his luggage in suprdgi. The list shows that the Petitioner was in occupation of the accommodation in dispute, as charpoys, chairs etc. were admittedly found therein. The Petitioner on coming to know of this saw the District Magistrate Azamgarh on the 25th May, 1960, but receiving no redress filed a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner after remanding the case and perusing the remand reports was satisfied that "it has been established through the enquiries that the family of the revisionist did not reside with him at Mau. The Commissioner after remanding the case and perusing the remand reports was satisfied that "it has been established through the enquiries that the family of the revisionist did not reside with him at Mau. On going through the papers I find that no enquiry on the spot was made by the housing Inspector or anybody else and the house was allotted merely oh the application of the opposite party stating that the house was vacant, on which it was reported that the revisionist having been transferred away should have vacated the house within a month of his transfer according to certain, executive orders to the subject." The Commissioner also agreed with the con tension of the Petitioner's counsel that the Petitioner had not been actually transferred but that his services at Azamgarh were terminated that the house at Azamgarh not having been allotted to him during his service at Azamgarh as a measure of accommodating persons in Government service but haying been in his occupation in the ordinary course even before his employment iander Government, the Govt. order if any was not applicable to his easel The Commissioner found as a fact on a perusal of the materials on the record including the remand re port that the house was not vacant when the order of allotment was made. He, therefore accepted the revision and set aside the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Azamgarh dated the 17th May 1960. 5. Against that order the opposite party No. 6 went up in revision and the State Government passed the usual stereotyped order. No finding was given as to whether the order of the Commissioner concluding that there was no vacancy, which was a finding of fact, was incorrect. Hence this writ petition for the quashing of that order. 6. It is a matter of some doubt as to whether the order of the Com missioner in such circumstances is at all subject to the revisional powers of the State Government u/s 7F. The Commissioner's order was passed u/s 7-A(4) of the Act and in substance the order directed that the (Petitioner) revisionist before him should not be ejected under the provisions of Section 7-A(3) of the Act. The powers of the State Government u/s 7F when it comes to revising an order u/s 7A are extremely circumscribed and limited. The Commissioner's order was passed u/s 7-A(4) of the Act and in substance the order directed that the (Petitioner) revisionist before him should not be ejected under the provisions of Section 7-A(3) of the Act. The powers of the State Government u/s 7F when it comes to revising an order u/s 7A are extremely circumscribed and limited. If an order (sic)s passed u/s 7A then it is only one particular kind of order and no (sic)ther which is subject to revision and that order is "directing a person to (sic)acate any accommodation u/s 7-A. When the revbion was filed before the State Government there was no legal, valid and enforceable order asking the Petitioner to vacate any accommodation u/s 7-A. The commissioner had, in fact, directed the opposite of this and that was that he Petitioner shall not be asked to vacate any Accommodation u/s 7A. Such an order is not revisable by the State Government. Be that as it may, as no such objection was takes by the Petitioner to the jurisdiction of the State Government to entertain the revision and he having submitted to the jurisdiction of the State Government by filing a reply it is too tate to take any such ground in this Writ petition. It is well settled that objection to jurisdiction must be taken at the, earliest possible opportunity, and if a party has not taken such an objection this Court in its writ jurisdiction will, not permit him to take any such objection. 7. The question, however, remains as to whether the powers of the State Government u/s 7-F to direct that the landlord shall let or not let the accommodation to any person u/s 7 are the same or any greater than the powers of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer? There cannot be much doubt that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cannot make any order of allotment unless the accommodation is in fact vacant or likely to fall vacant and therefore' that pre requisite for the passing of any such order must always be satisfied. It is well settled that the State Government has no larger powers in the matter of issuing direction to let or not to let out the accommodation than the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It is well settled that the State Government has no larger powers in the matter of issuing direction to let or not to let out the accommodation than the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. If the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has no jurisdiction, a fortiori the State Government will have no jurisdiction to pass any order u/s 7 unless the accommodation is vacant or is likely to fall vacant. Therefore, in all these cases, particularly when' there is a finding of fact given by the Commissioner that the accommodation was not vacant nor likely to fall vacant, it was incumbent upon the State Government to arrive at a clear finding that the accommodation was in fact vacant or likely to fall vacant, when the allotment order was made. The order of the State Government however is absolutely silent on this point, the proposition, that because there is some Government instruction regarding allotment to Government servants, therefore, the accommodation can be treated" as vacant is wholly fallacious. When exercising jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act, it is only the provisions of that Act which have to be considered and not any administrative or departmental instructions. The Supreme Court has now held in Lala Sri Bhagwan v. Ram Chandra (1) (1965 AWR 304) that the order of the State Government, is not an administrative but a quasi judicial order and therefore it is all the more necessary that the State Government before assuming jurisdiction should satisfy itself that the necessary prerequisite for the making of an allotment under existed. The State Government should not lightly brush aside the finding of fact given by the Commissioner on the basis of an elaborate remand enquiry. 8. Fox the reasons given above the order of the State Government dated 28.12.1962 is directed to be quashed. The State Government however will be at liberty to reconsider the revision application and pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with law. As this matter has been pending for over five years the State Government will dispose of this case as expeditiously as possible. The opposite party No. 6 will however not be ejected for three months from the date of this order. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs.