ORDER W. Broome, J. - This writ petition filed by Bal Krishna Dass Gupta challenges an order passed by the State Government on 19-5-1964 u/s 7-F of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, setting aside an allotment order made in favour of the Petitioner on 11-6-1963 in respect of a certain shop in the town of Farrukhabad. 2. The shop in question was formerly in the possession of a tenant named Mahesh Chandra, whose business appears to have failed, since his goods were sold by auction in July 1962. The Petitioner applied for the premises to be allotted to him, while the landlord Chandra Pal Singh (OP 2) asked for the shop to be released from allotment as he needed it for himself. The Rent Rent Control and Eviction Officer, however, found that the shop had not actually been vacated and consequently rejected both these applications. Later on Mahesh Chandra informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he was going to vacate the shop on 10-6-1963; and in anticipation of this the Petitioner made fresh applications for allotment on 24-5-1963 and 30-5-1963. The landlord was kept in the dark about these proceedings and on 11-6-1963 an order of allotment was passed in the Petitioner's favour. Three days later on 14-6-1963 the landlord, on coming to know what had taken place, applied to the Rent Control Officer for the allotment to be cancelled and for his prayer for the release of the premises to be considered; but on 2-9-1963 the Rent Control Officer, though satisfied that the allotment had been obtained by the Petitioner in collusion with the previous tenant without notice to the landlord, held that he had no power to cancel the allotment order in question, since it could not be said that that order was tainted with fraud or misrepresentation. Thereafter the landlord applied to the State Government in revision u/s 7-F of the Act; and after the representations of both parties had been considered, the impugned order was passed on 19-5-1964. 3. Thereafter the landlord applied to the State Government in revision u/s 7-F of the Act; and after the representations of both parties had been considered, the impugned order was passed on 19-5-1964. 3. The argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that once the Petitioner took possession of the premises under the allotment order, that order exhausted itself and could no longer be cancelled (in the absence of any element of fraud or misrepresentation) either by the Rent Control Officer himself or by the State Government in revision u/s 7-F. The contention is that by operation of law a tenancy must be deemed to have come into existence when the Petitioner took possession; and it is urged that there is no provision in the Act empowering the authorities to terminate or nullify a tenancy arising in this manner. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of Dhavan, J. in Peer Bux v. Karam Chand and Ors. 1963 ALJ 725, in which the following observations were made: I would hold that when in pursuance of an order u/s 7 the nominee of the District Magistrate occupies the accommodation allotted to him, the consent of the landlord will ordinarily be presumed and there is an implied contract of tenancy.... Under the Act neither the landlord nor the Rent Control and Eviction Officer can deprive a tenant of his rights after he has occupied the accommodation in pursuance of the allotment order. After the order has been implemented, it exhausts itself and there is nothing to cancel. That ruling, however, is clearly distinguishable. In that case it was held that "it is not the Defendant's (i.e. landlord's) case that he refused to obey the order from the very beginning" and it was suggested that there was considerable delay on the part of the landlord in applying for cancellation of the order, with the result that it was possible to argue that in the beginning the landlord had acquiesced in the allotment. In the present case, on the other hand, the landlord objected from the very beginning, as soon as he came to know that the allotment had been made. He could not keep the Petitioner out of the premises, for possession was taken behind his back in collusion with the outgoing tenant; but it is admitted that he has consistently refused to accept any rent from the Petitioner. 4. He could not keep the Petitioner out of the premises, for possession was taken behind his back in collusion with the outgoing tenant; but it is admitted that he has consistently refused to accept any rent from the Petitioner. 4. The way I see it is this. An order of allotment is an order u/s 7(2) of the Control of Rent and Eviction Act, requiring the landlord to let certain accommodation to a particular person; and it cannot be said that such an order has exhausted itself until the accommodation in question has actually been let by the landlord to that person. Letting implies that creation of a tenancy and the acceptance of a person as a tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant can only come into existence if there is a specific contract between the parties or if the landlord shows by his conduct (e.g. by accepting rent) that he is treating the allottee as a tenant. Obviously the mere taking possession of the premises by the allottee behind the back of the landlord would not by itself be sufficient to create a tenancy or to justify the inference that the accommodation has been let. 5. In the present case there was no agreement or contract between the parties; and the landlord from the very earliest opportunity showed by his conduct that he was challenging the allotment and repudiating the proposed tenancy. In such circumstances it is impossible to hold that the order of allotment had been complied with and that the premises had been let to the Petitioner. Consequently it cannot be said that the allotment order had been carried out and had exhausted itself; and the argument that there was nothing left for the State Government to cancel is quite untenable. 6. The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed with costs; and the interim order passed by this Court on 17-11-1964 is vacated. Mr. S.N. Misra, who appears for the Petitioner, has suggested that even if the State Government's order is allowed to stand, the Rent Control Officer should now be directed to consider the relative merit; of the Petitioner's claim to allotment and of the landlords claim for release; but the stage for such consideration will only come when the Petitioner has left or been turned out of the premises, thereby creating a vacancy. At the present juncture, I see no necessity for issuing any directions.