JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The accommodation in dispute fell vacant on 10th March, 1957. The Post Master applied to the Rent Control Officer for the allotment of that house for the Post Office. On 29th March, 1957, the Rent Control Officer passed an order allotting it to the Post Office. The plaintiff's case was that the Post Office occupied the accommodation the same day. It wanted the landlord to make some repairs and reconstructions. The same were carried out, but nonetheless the Post Office did not actually shift and start working in the building till 16th March, 1958. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant Union of India was liable to pay arrears of rent from the date of the allotment order till March, 1958, the period for which they refused to pay any rent. 3. In defence, it was pleaded that it was agreed between the landlord and the Postal authorities that the landlord would build a tin shed and a verandah in the building and then alone the Post Office would take possession and would be liable to pay rent. All this did not happen till the 16th March, 1958. The plaintiff was not entitled to any rent for a period prior to 16th March, 1958. 4. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had not contracted to construct a shed, chabutra and verandah before the Post Office took possession of it. The Post Office came in possession in June, 1957. The plaintiff did carry out the requisite constructions and so the defendants were liable to pay rent with effect from the date of the allotment order namely, 29th March, 1957, under Rule 5 framed under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The suit was, therefore, decreed. 5. The Union of India went up in appeal. The lower appellate could held that the order of allotment a valid order in the context of the statutory provisions in the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act and, therefore, the defendant incurred no liability under Rule 5. It has also been alleged that since no written contract had been entered into between the parties, the defendants were not liable at all under any alleged contract of tenancy. It has also been alleged that since no written contract had been entered into between the parties, the defendants were not liable at all under any alleged contract of tenancy. It was then held that the plaintiff was in actual possession of the accommodation till 16th March, 1958 when the Post Office shifted into the house and so he was not entitled to rent for any period prior to 16th March, 1958 The decree was, therefore, modified and the suit was decreed for Rs. 45/- as rent for the period 16th March, 1958 to 31st March, 1958, at the rate of Rs. 90/- per month. 6. This time, the plaintiff has come up to this Court in second appeal. 7. Section 7(2) of the Rent Control Act, provides that the District Magistrate may be a general or special order require a landlord to let out to any person any accommodation which has fallen vacant. It has been found and so also it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that an order which does not require a landlord to let out any accommodation is not an order under Section 7(2) of the Act. The order, which was served on the landlord as well as the Post Office states that according to the orders of the District Magistrate, dated 29th March, 1957 the building belonging to Shri Rama Nand Pandey in which the Central Bank was in occupation till 10th March, 1957, has been allotted to the Post Office, Auriya, on a monthly rent of Rs. 90/-. A copy of the aforesaid order was sent to the plaintiff Rama Nand Pandey and to the Post Master for information. In my opinion, this document communicated the order of the District Magistrate dated 29th March, 1957, to the landlord. It informed him that the District Magistrate had allotted the accommodation to the Post Office. Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act does not prescribe any form in which the District Magistrate is to couch his order. All that it requires is that the landlord be intimated as to the choice of the person as to whom the accommodation is to be let out. That has been clearly carried out by the document is question. It specifies the building and the choice of the person who is to be the tenant of the plaintiff. All that it requires is that the landlord be intimated as to the choice of the person as to whom the accommodation is to be let out. That has been clearly carried out by the document is question. It specifies the building and the choice of the person who is to be the tenant of the plaintiff. I would hold that the order fulfils the requirements of Section 7(2) of the Act. For the respondents Mr. Seth placed reliance upon Shri Chandra Bhan v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Agra, 1953 ALJ 440. In that case the impugned order was in these terms : "Allotted to Chandra bhan Jain. Issue allotment order." 8. It was found that no allotment order was, in fact, issued, that is to say, no order was actually served on the landlord. It was held that the order, a it was, was merely a direction by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to its own office to issue an order of allotment. This order by itself was not an order within the meaning of Section 7 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The case is clearly distinguishable on facts as well as in law. In the present case, the order was duly communicated to the landlord and it clearly indicated that the accommodation in dispute had been allotted to the specified person by the District Magistrate. 9. Reliance is also placed on Ram Lakhan Lal v. Addl. Commr., Gorakhpur, AIR 1954 Allahabad 606. In that case, the order in question was made on 21st September, 1963. It read : "The shop will therefore be allotted to Shri Ram Lakhan. Another applicant Shri Ram Swarath could have been allotted this shop because he is on the priority list as remarked above the needs of the owner carry more weight than Ram Swarath's claim. The file is returned to R.C. and E.O. for taking further action according to law." 10. The Court held that it was not an order under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. It was an expression of an opinion. It was merely a finding upon the basis of which an order for allotment could have been actually issued. Actually, the body of the judgment shows that another order, dated September, 1953, was issued. It was an expression of an opinion. It was merely a finding upon the basis of which an order for allotment could have been actually issued. Actually, the body of the judgment shows that another order, dated September, 1953, was issued. Obviously the order, dated 21st September, 1953 was a finding on the dispute as to who should be the choice for the letting out of the accommodation. This case is also, therefore distinguishable. In my opinion, the order in question fulfils the statutory requirement and was a valid order of allotment under Section 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 11. The trial Court found that the plaintiff had not contracted to construct a shed, chabutra and verandah before the Post Office took possession of the building. This finding had not been upset by the lower appellate court. Indeed, the appellate court had gone on the footing that there was no written contract, as required by Article 299 of the Constitution and so the Union of India would not be liable to pay anything to the plaintiff under any contract. On that footing the Union of India also could not claim anything by virtue of any contract alleged to have been entered into by it with the plaintiff, oral or otherwise. The Union of India, therefore, could not say that since the plaintiff had agreed to make the constructions before possession was delivered the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any rent if he had failed to carry out the undertaking, because there was no enforceable and valid contract between the parties. 12. The trial court found that the Post Office took actual possession in June, 1957. The appellate court, has, however, come to the conclusion that the exclusive possession of the house was with the plaintiff and not with the Post Office till the 16th March, 1968. That finding has been recorded on the basis that the plaintiff claimed that on receipt of the order of allotment the keys of the building were handed over to the Post Master. The postal authorities fixed telegraph wires to the building. They also fixed is that the iron safe in the building. The other fact that has been found that the plaintiff used to lock and open the main gate of the building. The postal authorities fixed telegraph wires to the building. They also fixed is that the iron safe in the building. The other fact that has been found that the plaintiff used to lock and open the main gate of the building. The plaintiff's case was that he had made the requisite constructions, but the postal authorities were not satisfied and it was only in March, 1958, that they actually shifted the Post Office and started functioning there. These fact coupled with the admitted fact that the Post Office had applied for the allotment of this building to Rent Control and Eviction Officer and had never intimated to the District Magistrate their inability to accept the accommodation for any reason or for any period of time; would show that the plaintiff, who was always willing to let it out to the postal authorities, did actually deliver possession to the postal authorities by handing over the keys. Thereafter, the postal authorities did some act to make it fit use as a Post Office. They fixed the telegraph wires and any iron safe. Some dispute appeared to have arisen between the parties as to the constructions that had to be made by the plaintiff. For that reason they did not actually start functioning as a Post Office in the building till 16th March, 1958. Nonetheless it is evident that the postal authorities had taken control of the building. They had not intimated to the District Magistrate that they were not willing or able to take possession of the building till the landlord had completed the requisite constructions. The finding that exclusive possession was not with the postal authorities till 16th March, 1958, does appear to be contrary to the fact found by the Court below. 13. Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act says : "The allottee shall, unless he intimates in writing to the District Magistrate his refusal to accept the accommodation within seven days of the receipt of the order, be liable for rent from the date of the allotment." 14. Under it, the liability arises by virtue of an order of allotment. The liability can be defeated only by the allottee intimating in writing to the District Magistrate his refusal to accept the accommodation within seven days of the order. Under it, the liability arises by virtue of an order of allotment. The liability can be defeated only by the allottee intimating in writing to the District Magistrate his refusal to accept the accommodation within seven days of the order. It was urged that the Post Office which was the allottee had never refused to accept the accommodation and so Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not attracted. Rule 5 does not apply only when there is a total refusal. In my opinion, it will apply as well to case where the allottee wishes to take possession of the building after some time. That will be a case of refusal to accept the accommodation for the duration. In that event also he ought to intimate the District Magistrate the fact that he would not accept the accommodation for a few months or few years or whatever may be the period. The purpose of the rule is obvious. It safeguards the rights of the landlord to the rent for the period of inter-regnum. If the allottee intimates the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate would be entitled to allot it to some other person either for the duration for which the allottee does not wish to take the accommodation or otherwise. If the allottee does not so intimate to the District Magistrate his liability, which is a statutory liability, continues and he would be bound to pay rent from the date of the allotment order. In the present case, the allottee did not intimate the District Magistrate. Its case was that it was not liable to take possession or pay rent till the requisite constructions had been done to its satisfaction. That would be a case of a refusal to accept the accommodation for the time being till the constructions and repairs had been completed by the landlord. In such a situation also, Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act would be attracted. The liability which accrued under the Statute, therefore, continued to run and was never suspended or defeated. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to claim rent from the allottee from the date of the allotment order. Admittedly, rent was not paid till the 31st March, 1958. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The liability which accrued under the Statute, therefore, continued to run and was never suspended or defeated. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to claim rent from the allottee from the date of the allotment order. Admittedly, rent was not paid till the 31st March, 1958. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The decree of the appellant court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The Appellant will be entitled to his costs in the lower appellate court and in this Court.