ORDER S.D. Khare, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is that the order dated 27-10-1965, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, be quashed by means of a writ in the nature of certiorari. 2. The undisputed facts leading to this petition, briefly stated, are that the Petitioner is the landlord and the owner of house No. 10, Lowther Road, Allahabad, consisting of several rooms and verandahs. In the year 1962 the landlord permitted N.P. Srivastava, opposite party No. 2, to occupy two living rooms in that building as a tenant thereof. For sometime thereafter both the landlord and the tenant shared the common bathroom and latrine, but in the year 1964 the Petitioner constructed a store, a kitchen, a bathroom, a latrine and a courtyard and allowed the opposite party to use the same. There arose a dispute between the landlord and the tenant with regard to the use of a verandah and the opposite party No. 2 moved the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad, by application dated 6-7-1965 (vide Annexure I) that the portion of the house which was constructed prior to the year 1951 be allotted to him so that his occupancy be regularised. The Petitioner filed an objection before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on 7-9-1965 mainly on the grounds that the accommodation cannot be split up into two portions, that in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules a portion of the house could not be allotted to opposite party No. 2 and that at the time the application had been made there was no vacancy inasmuch as the landlord was occupying his portion of the house while opposite party No. 2 was in the occupation of the other. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, by means of the impugned order, allotted the portion of the old building which was already in the occupation of opposite party No. 2 to opposite party No. 2 on the ground that it was an old construction and the provisions of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply. He mentioned in his order that the portion in occupation of opposite party No. 2 consisted of two rooms, front verandah, a bath and latrine, an enclosure in front of the verandah and an enclosed verandah towards the courtyard of the landlord. He, however, passed the allotment order only in respect of the two living rooms and one inner verandah which, in his judgment, were constructions, made prior to the year 1951, and did not pass any order in respect of the front verandah, bathroom, latrine and the enclosure which according to his judgment were constructions made after the year 1951. 3. The contention of the Petitioner is that the allotment order is bad because-- (i) its effect was to split up the tenancy as also the accommodation in possession of opposite party No. 2, and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction to allot part of the accommodation to opposite party No. 2, and (ii) it contravened the provisions of Rules 7 and 8 of the Control of Rent and Eviction Rules. No counter affidavit was filed by opposite party No. 2. A request was made by the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 for adjournment of the case to enable opposite party No. 2 to file a counter affidavit. That request was not granted. 4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. In my opinion no case is made out for quashing the allotment order in favour of opposite party No. 2. 5. The term "accommodation" has been defined in Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act as follows: 'accommodation' means residential and non-residential accommodation in any building or part of a building and includes (i) gardens, grounds and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to such building or part of ca' building, (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building or part of a building, (iii) any fitting affixed to such building or part of a building for the mere beneficial enjoyment thereof but does not include any accommodation used as a factory for industrial purposes where the business carried on in or upon the building is also leased out by the same transaction. A part of the building could, there, fore, be an accommodation within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act which applies only to constructions made prior to the year 1951. A part of the building could, there, fore, be an accommodation within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act which applies only to constructions made prior to the year 1951. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer could not, therefore, have allotted part of the building which had been constructed after the year 1951 and he has carefully refrained from doing so. 6. It is, therefore, clear that what the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted to opposite party No. 2 was an accommodation within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. It is altogether immaterial if the landlord had also let out some other portions of the building to opposite party No. 2 either under one contract or under two separate contracts. The effect of the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the act of the landlord is that there are now two accommodations in possession of opposite party No. 2, one allotted to him by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the other let out to him without the intervention of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 7. The Petitioner had himself let out a portion of his building to opposite party No. 2 without informing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. By the impugned order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer merely allowed the same tenant to continue in that portion of the building. In the circumstances it is difficult to say how the provisions of Rules 7 and 8 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Rules have been contravened. Rule 7 and the relevant portion of Rule 8 read as follows: 7. Where a portion of accommodation falls vacant and the owner is in occupation of another portion thereof, the District Magistrate shall, before making the allotment order, consult the owner and shall, as far as possible, make the allotment in accordance with the wishes of the owner; 8. (i) In case a landlord desires to let out a portion of an accommodation any portion of which was not let out before, the District Magistrate shall make the allotment, if the landlord happens to be living in any portion of the accommodation, in accordance with the wishes of the landlord and if the landlord does not live in the accommodation in accordance, as far as may be, with his wishes. In the present case the allotment order must be deemed to relate back to the time when the vacancy took place. At the time the vacancy took place the landlord had himself let out a part of the building to opposite party No. 2. For that reason no question of any contravention of Rules 7 and 8 of the U.P. Control of Rent and Eviction Rules arises. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the cases of Puran Chand v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer 1959 ALJ 343 and Onkar Nath v. Chhajju Ram 1963 AWR 141 for the proposition that no order of allotment could be made unless a vacancy had occurred. That proposition of law is well established and cannot be disputed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer gets jurisdiction to allot only when a vacancy occurs. In the present case a vacancy did occur when the landlord decided to allow opposite party No. 2 to occupy a portion of the building. At that time the landlord ought to have informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of what he was going to do, so that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer could pass an order of allotment in accordance with the provisions of the law. However, that was not done by him. As soon as the matter was brought to his knowledge by opposite party No. 2 it was open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to treat opposite party No. 2 as an unauthorised occupant and to evict him u/s 7-A of the Act and to allot the accommodation in accordance with law. However, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has taken a lenient view of the matter and allotted the accommodation to the unauthorised occupant to regularise his occupation. No illegality appears to have been committed, and no interference is called for. 9. There is no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.