ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition is directed against an order of the State Government setting aside an order of allotment passed in Petitioner's favour and allotting the premises in dispute to Sri Ram Chandra, Respondent No. 3. 2. Shop No. 10/252 in Mohalla Moviganj Bazar, Badaun, fell vacant in the month of February, 1962. The Petitioner made an application for its allotment. The application bore the endorsement of consent of one Lata Duli Chand, who was stated to be one of the co-owners of the shop. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Badaun, on 14-2-1962, allotted the shop in favour of the Petitioner. On 16-2-1962 the Petitioner took possession and intimated the officer of that fact. On 17-2-1962 Smt. Aqila Bano, who was one of the co-owners, made an application for cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that the facts regarding ownership of the shop have not been correctly reported. The same day the Rent Control and Eviction Officer passed an order stating that from the representation received from Sri Hnjee alias Husain, Mukhtar of Smt. Aqila Bano, it appears that the facts regarding ownership etc. have not been correctly reported by the parties. In view of the fact that the allotment order has evidently been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts, the same is hereby cancelled pending further enquiries. The objection of Smt. Aqila Bano was enquired into. It appears that a suit for preemption of the shares purchased by Lala Duli Chand was filed because of which this enquiry was delayed. It is alleged that on 16-9-1962, the third Respondent made an application for the allotment of the shop. On 2-2-1965, Smt. Aqila Bano executed a rent note in favour of the Petitioner and accepted rent from him. Ultimately on 23-3-1965 the officer passed an order regularising the possession of the Petitioner with effect from the date of his original possession. In this order he stated that he had considered the needs of the various Applicants for the shop and had also heard the landlords. The need of Sri Ram Prakash (the Petitioner) appeared to be more genuine than others. He directed that an allotment order be issued to the Petitioner. In this order he stated that he had considered the needs of the various Applicants for the shop and had also heard the landlords. The need of Sri Ram Prakash (the Petitioner) appeared to be more genuine than others. He directed that an allotment order be issued to the Petitioner. It is significant that in this order the objections of Smt. Aqila Bano were not mentioned, obviously because Smt. Aqila Bano had by then executed the rent note in favour ot the Petitioner and had lost interest in them. None of the other parties also seem to have pressed for a finding on the objections of Smt. Aqila Bano. That matter seems to have become dead. 3. Thereafter the third Respondent filed an application u/s 7-F to the State Government. In the revision the Respondent's case was that his need was more essential than that of the Petitioner and that the accommodation should have been allotted to him. The Petitioner filed an objection whereafter the third Respondent filed a rejoinder, copy whereof is Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit. In this rejoinder absolute a new case was taken up that the original allotment order was obtained by the Petitioner by collusion with some staff of the Rent Control Office. Very many details of these charges were mentioned. It was also stated there for the first time, that the third Respondent had also made an application on 14-2-1962, but the staff of the Rent Control Office did not bring that application to the notice of the Rent Control Officer when he passed the original order of allotment on 14-2-1962. It has not been stated by anybody that this rejoinder was brought to the notice of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has in his rejoinder affidavit clearly stated that he never received any copy of this rejoinder. On 20-9-966 the State Government passed the impugned order stating that it had examined the version of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice it considered it necessary that the allotment order dated 23-3-1965 be cancelled and the shop be allotted to the third Respondent. 4. This order of allotment has been challenged on many grounds. It has been urged that the order of the State Government does not state any reasons for its conclusions. 4. This order of allotment has been challenged on many grounds. It has been urged that the order of the State Government does not state any reasons for its conclusions. Proceedings u/s 7-F being quasi judicial in nature, it was in law incumbent upon the State Government to have incorporated its reasons in the order itself. It has also been urged that the order dated 17-2-1962 cancelling the initial allotment order passed on 14-2-1962 was without jurisdiction and a nullity. Hence the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to pass any other allotment order on 23-3-1965. Similarly, the State Government could not pass a second allotment order without setting aside the first allotment order in favour of the Petitioner passed on 14-2-1962. 5. The second point appears to have force. It is settled view of this Court chat an order of allotment can be cancelled on a finding of fraud or misrepresentation etc. The proceedings for cancellation of an existing order of allotment are quasi judicial in nature. In Suraj Narain v. District Magistrate 1958 AWR 432 it was held the there can be no doubt that ordinarily a order of allotment can be modified or cancelled only if in pursuance of it the allottee has not taken possession, but in spite of possession having been taken, an allotment order can be set aside on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation or mistake or collusion etc. It was held that if the officer who passed the order found that the order has been passed by mistake or misapprehension of fact etc., he has power to correct his own mistake and set the matter right. Thus a clear cut finding in that respect is necessary before an order of allotment can be interfered with or set aside. 6. In Mohammed Ishaq Vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur and Others, AIR 1959 All 580 it was held that before cancelling the order on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation etc., the Rent Control and Eviction Officer must enquire into the matter and formally pronounce the alleged guilt or fraud. The proceedings are quasi judicial and the allottee must be given an opportunity of meeting the charges of fraud or misrepresentation. A tenant in possession has property rights in it and he cannot be deprived of it without being given an opportunity of being heard. The proceedings are quasi judicial and the allottee must be given an opportunity of meeting the charges of fraud or misrepresentation. A tenant in possession has property rights in it and he cannot be deprived of it without being given an opportunity of being heard. If no such opportunity is given, the order of cancellation of the allotment order is liable to be quashed on that ground alone. Thus, it is clear that proceedings for cancellation of an allotment order on a charge of fraud or misrepresentation or mistake etc. are quasi judicial in nature and an opportunity of explanation has to be afforded to the allottee before a final order or conclusion can be reached. It is only on the basis of such a finding that an order of allotment can be set aside by the officer. The officer has no jurisdiction at all to cancel an order of allotment before making an enquiry or coming to a finding. In this case an application was made by the landlady for setting aside the allotment order on certain grounds. The same day the allotment order was cancelled. That was totally without jurisdiction and the order was in the eye of law a nullity. The position in law would be as if the original order of allotment passed on 14-2-1962 continued to operate. 7. There being in existence an order of allotment and the allottee being in possession, proceedings for allotting it afresh by considering applications/of other persons were also without jurisdiction, because there was no vacancy. It is undisputable that the State Government has not set aside or interfered with the original order of allotment passed on 14-2-1962, but nonetheless the State Government has allotted the shop to the third Respondent. That the State Government had no jurisdiction to do. It could not superimpose a tenant on a sitting tenant. The State Government's direction alloting the accommodation to the third Respondent was hence void. 8. As the petition is entitled to succeed on this point, it is not necessary to go into the other submissions that the State Government's order was bad because it did not state any reasons for its conclusions. 9. For the third Respondent, Mr. Rajesh Ji Verma, raised an objection that the present petition should fail because it has not impleaded Smt. Aqila Bano the landlady. The present petition is directed against the State Government's order. 9. For the third Respondent, Mr. Rajesh Ji Verma, raised an objection that the present petition should fail because it has not impleaded Smt. Aqila Bano the landlady. The present petition is directed against the State Government's order. From the copy of' the memorandum of revision filed by the third Respondent it is apparent that Smt. Aqila Bano was not impleaded as a party in the revision before the State Government. If the Petitioner's objection is taken to its logical conclusion, the revision itself before the State Government was incompetent and the State Government's order was liable to be set aside on that ground. Since Smt. Aqila Bano was not impleaded before the State Government, it was not incumbent upon the Petitioner to have impleaded her in the present petition. The present petition cannot be held to be defective on that account. 10. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the State Government dated 20-9-1966 is set aside. Under the circumstances the parties will bear their own costs.