( 1 ) RESIDENTIAL premises bearing No. 14/1 situate at Nehrunagar, Bangalore city belonging to the 4th respondent became vacant and the intimation of vacancy was given by the landlord to the Controller on the 15th of november, 1972. The petitioner, respondent Nos. 3 and 7 others made applications for allotment of the premises. On the 24th of November, 1972, the Controller made an order provisionally allotting the premises to the petitioner. On the same day, the Controller issued a notice to the landlord requiring her to show cause as to why the premises should not be leased to the petitioner. The case was posted for hearing the objections, if any, on the 1st of December, 1972. In response to the said notice, the landlord filed a statement agreeing to the provisional allotment made in favour of the petitioner. The third respondent and some other applicants filed their objections against the provisional allotment and reiterated their respective claims for allotment in their favour. The Controller, thereafter, made an order on the 4th of December, 1972, finally allotting the premises to respondent 3, after cancelling the provisional allotment made in favour of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner challenged the order of the Controller in appeal before the special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, who, by his order dt. 1st of March, 1973, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the allotment made in favour of the third respondent. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the quashing of the order of final allotment made by the Controller dt. 4th December, 1972, as well as the appellate order dt. 1st March, 1973 made by 'the Spl. Deputy commissioner, Banglore District and has also prayed that the provisional allotment made by the Controller in favour of the petitioner be confirmed. ( 4 ) THE principal contention urged by Shri G. R. Ethirajulu Naidu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that after the provisional allotment was made by the Controller in favour of the petitioner and the landlord was issued a notice to show cause why the same should not be confirmed, the Controller had no jurisdiction to cancel the said provisional allotment and to allot the premises to respondent 3, inasmuch as the landlord, has consented to the provisional allotment made in favour of the petitioner. ( 5 ) SHRI S. G. Doddakalegowda, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, maintained that the Controller had jurisdiction to allot the premises even to an applicant other than the one in whose favour the provisional allotment was made, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord was agreeable to the provisional allotment being confirmed. He further submitted that in this case the case of the third respondent not having been considered when the Controller made the provisional allotment in favour of the petitioner, the order of provisional allotment itself was not in accordance with law and that therefore the Controller was right in considering the application of the third respondent and making an allotment in his favour on the 4th of December, 1972. ( 6 ) FOR the right decision of this case, it appears to us necessary to ascertain what is the procedure that is required to be followed by the controller under the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder, after the receipt of intimation of vacancy. ( 7 ) SEC. 4 (1) of the Act requires every landlord to give intimation of the vacancy of premises to the Controller within 15 days after the same has become vacant. Rule 3 (i) requires that such an intimation should be given in Form I in triplicate. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 prohibits the landlord from letting, occupying or permitting to be occupied the premises referred to in sub-sec (1) without giving intimation of vacancy to the Contoller and for a period of fifteen days from the date on which 'the intimation is received or within a period of one week after the 'termination of proceedings u/s. 8 if any, whichever is later, except as otherwise provided in Part II. S. 5 empowers the Controller to direct the landlord that any vacant building, whether intimation of its vacancy has been given or not, be given on lease to such public authority or other person as he thinks fit. We are not concerned in this case with 'the provisions of Sec. 6 which deals with the power of the Controller to order leasing of occupied building. S. 8 prescribes the procedure to be followed before ordering the leasing of any building to a public authority or other person under S. 5 or S. 6 and reads as follows:"8. We are not concerned in this case with 'the provisions of Sec. 6 which deals with the power of the Controller to order leasing of occupied building. S. 8 prescribes the procedure to be followed before ordering the leasing of any building to a public authority or other person under S. 5 or S. 6 and reads as follows:"8. Procedure to be followed before ordering leasing of any building for a public authority or other person. . . . . . . (1) Before issuing any order under S. 5 or S. 6, the Controller- (a) shall call upon the landlord or any other person who may be in possession of the building by notice in writing to show cause, within seven days from the date of the service of such notice on him, why the building should not be ordered to be leased to a public authority or other person as may be specified in the notice; and (b) may, by order direct that neither the landlord nor any other person shall, without the permission of the Controller, dispose of or structurally alter the building or let it out to a tenant or occupy it or use it until the expiry of such period not exceeding one month, as may be specified in the order. (2) In selecting the public authority or other person in whose favour an order may be made under this section, the Controller shall observe such order of priority as may be prescibed. Provided that where the State Govt. or in respect of any area, any officer not below the rank of a Deputy Commissioner authorised by the state Government in this behalf, directs thalt any building shall be leased to any public authority or any officer of the State Government or of Ithe Central Government, the Controller shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5), make an order under this section in favour of such public authority or officer, as the case may be. (3) In considering the causes, if any, shown by the landlord or other person in possession, the Controller shall, in case the premises to be leased is a part of a building, give due regard to the customs, manners and social conventions of the persons occupying the remaining portions of the building, in so far as such customs, manners and social conventions are not opposed to law, public order, morality or health. (4) If, after considering the causes, if any, shown by the landlord or other person in possession of the building, the Controller is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he may by an order in writing direct the building to be leased to such public authority or other person specified in the notice under sub-sec. (1) at such rent as shall be specified in such order and may make such further orders as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in connection therewith: provided that the rent specified in any such order shall not be less than- (i) the fair rent, if any, fixed for the building; or (ii) if any fair rent has not been fixed for the building, the rent last paid for the building; (iii) if no rent was last paid, the rent determined by the Controller on the basis of the rental value of the building as entered in the property tax assessment book of the local authority; or (i) if no property tax has been assessed in respect of the building, the rent determined by the Controller on the basis of the prevailing rates of rent in the locality for similar buildings in similar circumstances: provided further that unless the rent specified m such order is the fair rent of the building, the tenant or the landlord shall be entitled to apply for fixation of fair rent in respect of the building. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (4), no order under the said sub-section shall be made in favour of a person other than a public authority, unles's- (i) such person has made an application in 'the prescribed form to the Controller for allotiment of a building for his use or occupation. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (4), no order under the said sub-section shall be made in favour of a person other than a public authority, unles's- (i) such person has made an application in 'the prescribed form to the Controller for allotiment of a building for his use or occupation. (ii) such person has deposited for deposit with the Controller for payment to the landlord an amount equal to one month's rent of the building as advance, and (iii) the Controller is satisfied that such person is not occupying or for reasonable cause cannot occupy a building, which is his own or for the possession of which he is entitled and which is suitable for his requirements. "rule 3 (n) provides for the steps to be taken by the Controller after receipt of intimation vacancy and the same reads as follows:"3 (ii ). Immediately after the receipt of intimation of vacancy of any building, the Controller shall specify a date of hearing for considering the causes, if any, shown by the landlord and other persons. He shall send a copy of the intimation of vacancy and report the date to which the case stands posted for selecting the public authority or person in whose favour an order may be made under S. 8 to the State government or where an Officer has been authorised under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 8, to such officer and shall notify on the notice board of his office the particulars of the building given in items 1, 2, 4 and 9 of Form 1, and also notify the date to which the case stands posted and shall keep a copy of the intimation in the office for the inspection of all persons desiring to see it. 2. Amendment to Rule 3-In sub-rule (ii) of Rule 3 of the Mysore rent Control Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), at the end, the following sentence shall be inserted namely: 'the date of the first hearing of the case shall also be communicated to the landlord by the Controller'. " ( 8 ) A Full Bench consisting of Sadasivayya, Govinda Bhat and Chandrashekar, JJ. had occasion to examine the scheme of the Act from the stage of receipt of intimation of vacancy up to the stage of making a final order of allotment under sub-sec. " ( 8 ) A Full Bench consisting of Sadasivayya, Govinda Bhat and Chandrashekar, JJ. had occasion to examine the scheme of the Act from the stage of receipt of intimation of vacancy up to the stage of making a final order of allotment under sub-sec. (4) of S. 8 in M. A. Sarada Bai v. State of Mysore, (1968)2 Mys. L. J. 384. Speaking for the Full Bench, Justice Govinda Bhat (one of us) has observed as follows:" On an examination of the scheme of the Act and its relevant provisions, we are of opinion, that the Act contemplates only one enquiry by the Controller after receipt of intimation of vacancy of the building. "though the Full Bench was directly concerned with the question as to at what stage the Controller has to consider the cause shown by the lanlord in response to a notice issued under S. 8 (1) when the landlord opposes the leasing of the premises on the ground thai he himself bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation, the aforesaid observation was made on examination of the entire scheme of the Act. As the Full Bench has categorically laid down that the Act contemplates only one enquiry by the Controller after receipt of intimation of vacancy of the building, we have to proceed on the basis that the procedure prescribed by S. 8 read with Rule 3 contemplates only one enquiry after receipt of intimation of vacancy under S. 4 (1) culminating in a final order under sub-sec. (4) of s. 8 read with S. 5 of the Act. It is in this background that we have to examine the various steps which the Controller is required to take under s. 8 and Rule 3, after receipt of intimation of vacancy under Sec. 4 (1) of the Act. ( 9 ) AS only one enquiry is contemplated, as laid down in the case of sarada Bai (1), and as no other stage of enquiry other than the one specified in sub-sec. (4) of S. 8 is provided, it follows that it is only alt that enquiry that all necessary and relevant matters have to be decided by the controller for the purpose of making a final order in the matter. (4) of S. 8 is provided, it follows that it is only alt that enquiry that all necessary and relevant matters have to be decided by the controller for the purpose of making a final order in the matter. The question as to whether the requirement of the landlord for his personal occupation is bona fide and as to whether it is necessary or expedient to direct that the building be leased to a public authority or other person, are all matters which have to be decided at one and the same enquiry under sub-sec. (4) of S. 8, as under the Act, only one enquiry is contemplated from the date of receipt of intimation up to the stage of making a final order under sub-sec. (4) of Section 8. ( 10 ) NEITHER the' Act nor the Rules contemplate any other enquiry at an earlier stage other than thp stage of enquiry under sub-sec. (4) of s. 8. Therefore, the procedure followed by the Controller in holding two enquiries, one for the purpose of making a provisional allotment in which the landlord does not participate, and another enquiry thereafter to consider the causes that may be shown by the landlord, is illegal and opposed to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sarada Bai's case (1 ). ( 11 ) BUT, it was contended that a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of S. 8 cannot be issued to the landlord requiring him to show cause as to why the building should not be ordered to be leased to a public authority or other person as may be specified in the notice, unless the Controller has decided before issuing that notice, as to the public authority or other person in whose favour he proposes to make the allotment. Sustenance to this argument is sought to be derived from the language of cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of S. 8 which requires that the landlord should be called upon to show cause why the building should not be ordered to be leased to a public authority or other person as may be specified in the notice. Sustenance to this argument is sought to be derived from the language of cl. (a) of sub-section (1) of S. 8 which requires that the landlord should be called upon to show cause why the building should not be ordered to be leased to a public authority or other person as may be specified in the notice. If the intention of the Legislature was that the selecting of the public authority or other person by the Controller should have preceded the issue of notice in accordance with clause (a) of sub-sec (1) of S. 8, a clear and specific provision would have been made in the Act to that effect. The absence of a specific provision in regard to such an important stage clearly indicates that the process of selecting a public authority or other person by the Controller was not required to be gone through before issuing a notice under cl. (a)of sub-sec. (1)of S. 8. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the rules which contemplate only one enquiry, what cl. (a)of sub-sec. (1)of S. 8 requires is that the Controller should specify in the notice the name of the public authority or other person or persons who have made applications in the prescribed form to the Controller for allotment. The object of the notice issued under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 8 to the landlord is to have his say in the matter in regard to the leasing of the premises as well as in regard to the choice of his tenant. That object will be served if the name and particulars of the public authority or other applicants seeking allotment are furnished to the landlord in the notice issued under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 8. If only one enquiry is held, at which all matters are investigated into and finally decided, it will not only minimise unnecessary waste of public time but also reduce to the minimum the duration during which the premises is required to be kept vacant. We are, herefore, of the opinion that cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 8 will be sufficiently complied with if in the notice given under that provision the names and particulars of the public authority or officer in whose favour a direction is issued under S. 8 (2) and other persons who have made applications for allotment under sub-sec. We are, herefore, of the opinion that cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 8 will be sufficiently complied with if in the notice given under that provision the names and particulars of the public authority or officer in whose favour a direction is issued under S. 8 (2) and other persons who have made applications for allotment under sub-sec. (5) of S. 8 are given. The landlord will then be in a position 10 take his stand vis-a-vis the rival claimants for the tenancy. ( 12 ) WE have already indicated the various steps expressly provided by the Act and the Rules which the Controller is required to take. There is, however, no express provision either in the Act or in the Rules providing for fixing a date within which directions under sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 and applications under sub-sec. (5) of S. 8 can be received by the Controller for being considered for the purpose of allotment of the building. But, it is clear that there has to be such a date, as otherwise it will not be possible to specify the public authority or other applicants in the notice which the Controller is required to issue to the landlord under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 8. As the fixing of such a date is a procedural matter, the Controller having been conferred jurisdiction to make appropriate orders under S. 8 (4) read with S. 5, he must be regarded as having implied power to fix a date for receipt of directions under S. 8 (2) and applications under S. 8 (3 ). Having regard to all relevant matters, the Controller has to fix the last date for receipt of directions under sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 and applications under S. 8 (5) and notify the same on the notice board of his office and send intimation of the same to the State Government or where an Officer has been authorised under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 8, to such Officer, at the time of sending a copy of the intimation of vacancy and reporting the date to which the case stands posted for selecting the public authority or person for the purpose of allotting the premises. Soon after receipt of intimation of vacancy, the Controller should fix the last date for receipt of directions under sub-sec. Soon after receipt of intimation of vacancy, the Controller should fix the last date for receipt of directions under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 8 and applications under sub-sec. (5) of S. 8 and also the date of hearing for consideration of the causes, if any, shown bv the landlord and other persons. Immediately after the last date for receipt for directions under sub-section (2) of Section 8 and applications under sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 8, the Controller shall issue a notice requiring the landlord to show cause within 7 days from the date of receipt of service of such notice on him, why the building should not be ordered to be leased either to a public authority or any other person specified in the notice. ( 13 ) HAVING regard to the scheme of the Act and the Rules, we are of the opinion that the Controller is required to take the following steps after receipt of intimation of vacancy: (1) He shall fix the last date for receipt of directions under S. 8 (2) and applications under S. 8 (5) and notify the same on the notice board of his office. (2) He shall fix the date of hearing for consideration of causes, if any, shewn by the landlorrd and other persons. (3) He shall notify on the notice board of his office the particulars of the building given in items 1, 2, 4 and 9 of the Form No. I (4) He shall notify on the notice board of his office the date to which the case stands posted, for hearing. (5) He shall keep a copy of the intimation in the office for the inspection of persons desiring to see it. (6) He shall send a copy of the intimation of the vacancy and report the last date fixed for receipt of directions under S. 8 (2) and also the date to which the case stands posted for selecting the public authority or person in whose favour an order may be made under S. 8, to the State Government or where an Officer has been authorised under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Section 8, to such officer. (7 ). After tne last date fixed under Item No. 1, he shall issue a notice in writing as provided by clause (a) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 8, to such officer. (7 ). After tne last date fixed under Item No. 1, he shall issue a notice in writing as provided by clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 8 to the landlord or any other perrson who may be in possession of the building requiring him to show cause within seven days from the date of service of such notice on him, why the building should not be ordered to be leased to the public authority or other person as may be specified in the notice. The names and particulars of the public authority in whose favour a direction has been issued under S. 8 (2) and of the other applicants who have presented applications under S. 8 (5) within the time fixed by the Controller and which are in order shall be mentioned in the notice. (8) He may by order direct that neither the landlord nor any other person shall without his permission dispose or structurally after the building or let it out or occupy ft or use it until the expiry of such period not exceeding one month, as may be specified in the said order. (9) On the date fixed for hearing, the Controller shall hear all the parties, consider the causes, if any, shown by the landlord or other person in possession of the building and arrive at a decision under sub-sec. (4) of s. 8, that it is necessary or expedient to direct that the building be leased to a public authority or other person or that the building is bona fide requiredby the landlord for occupation by himself and that therefore it is not necessary or expedient to direct that the building be leased to a public authority or other person specified in the notice issued under S. 8 (1) (a ). When the Controller makes a direction to lease a building to a public authority or other person, he shall make an order in writing to that effect and specify the rent payable and make such further orders as appear to be necessary or expedient in connection therewith. When the Controller makes a direction to lease a building to a public authority or other person, he shall make an order in writing to that effect and specify the rent payable and make such further orders as appear to be necessary or expedient in connection therewith. ( 14 ) IT was however, urged by Shri Ethirajulu Naidu that the Act and the Rules contemplate two enquiries, one for the purpose of making a provisional allotment and another for the purpose of making a final allotment, is clear from the decision of this Court in Ramachandra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner and House Rent Control Appellate Authority, (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 184. It is no doubt, true that it was assumed in that case that two enquiries are contemplated under the Act and the Rules. The Full Bench decision in sarada Bai's case (1) though rendered about two months earlier, was not cited before the Division Bench which decided the case of Ramachandra rao (2), possibly because of the reason that the decision of the Full Bench was reported in the second volume of 1968 Mysore Law Journal long after the decision of the Division Bench in Ramachandra Rao's Case (2) was reported. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot usefully press into service the decision of the Division Bench of this Court which is clearly in conflict with the decision of the Full Bench in Sarada Bai's case (1), wherein it is categorically laid down, on an examination of the scheme of the Act and its provisions that the Act contemplates only one enquiry by the Controller after receipt of intimation of vacancy of the building. ( 15 ) THAT the consistent practice of holding two enquiries, one for the purpose of making a provisional allotment and another for the purpose of making a final allotment after notice to the landlord has been followed in this case is not an argument for sustaining the impugned orders as the procedure followed by the Controller is opposed to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the decision of this Court in Sarada Bai's case (1 ). Shri Doddakalegwoda is also right in his submission that though there is reference to the application of the third respondent in the provisional order of allotment dt. Shri Doddakalegwoda is also right in his submission that though there is reference to the application of the third respondent in the provisional order of allotment dt. 24-11-1972, the application of the third respondent was not considered when the claims of other applicants were considered. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we quash the provisional order of the Controller dt. 24-11-1972, the final order made by the Controller dated 4-12-1972 as well as the appellate order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 1st March. 1973, and remit the case to the Controller-respondent no. 2 to decide the entire matter afresh in the light of the observations made in the course of this order, as expeditiously as possible. ( 17 ) INTERIM order of stay was granted in favour of the petitioner on his giving an undertaking to the Court to pay the rent of the premises to the landlord-respondent No. 4 till the disposal of this writ petition. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we direct the petitioner to pay the rent of the premises to the landlor d-respondent No. 4 till the date of the decision by the Controller, after remand, irrespective of the decision. No costs. ( 18 ) LET copies of this order be sent to all Controllers in the State. --- *** --- .