JUDGMENT R.L. Gulati, J. - The petitioner is the owner of a shop in Bansmandi, Etah. According to the petitioner this shop had been requisitioned by the Collector, Etah for use as a godown by the Agriculture Department sometime in 1958-59. The petitioner was receiving a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. The petitioner has stated that the Agriculture Department fell in arrears of rent. He has further stated that he was doing a brick kiln business in which he suffered a heavy loss and closed down the same. He wanted to do some other business in the aforesaid shop. He according gave a notice dated 16th February, 1970 to the Collector demanding the rent as well as terminating his tenancy. The shop was vacated by the Agriculture Department after one month of the service of the notice and its possession was delivered to the petitioner on 24th June 1970 and since then he is in possession. It appears that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer coming to know that the petitioner had occupied the shop without proper order of release issued a notice to him to show cause way he had let out the accommodation to the Agriculture Department without allotment and also why he had not intimated its vacancy. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for release under Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act on 2nd September, 1970. On the ground that he needed the shop for his own use. In the meantime several other persons also made applications for allotment of the shop in their favour including 3rd respondent. Sri Horilal the second respondent, namely, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the petitioner's application by an order dated 4th December, 1970. The petitioner then applied in revision before the State Government under section 7-F of the Act. The State Govt. has ejected the revision petition and the petitioner has now approaches this Court under Article 225 of he Constitution praying that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as also of the State Government be quashed. 2. Now when one turns to the order of the State Government one finds that the State Government has rejected the petitioner's application on wholly irrelevant considerations. 2. Now when one turns to the order of the State Government one finds that the State Government has rejected the petitioner's application on wholly irrelevant considerations. The only question that the State Government had to decide was as to whether the petitioners need was genuine and as such entitled to the release of the shop In his favour under Rule 6 of the Rent framed under the Act. The State Government took into consideration the fact that the petitioner had not applied for the release of the shop under section 3 and according to It this omission on his part cast a doubt on the genuineness of his need. To my mind this approach of the State Government is manifestly erroneous. It is true that under section 7 of the Act it is the duty of the landlord to intimate the vacancy and if he fails to do so, he becomes liable for punishment on conviction under section 7 of the Act. But his omission to perform a statutory duty under section 7 has no bearing on his need for the accommodation. When an accommodation falls vacant and the landlord occupies it without intimating the vacancy to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and without applying for its release, he renders himself liable to penalty etc. under the Act. But such a conduct on his part does not show that he does not need the accommodation genuinely. On the contrary such a conduct would show that his need is dire. He fails to notify the vacancy and apply for its release tearing that the accommodation may be allotted to someone else. But to hold that a landlord's need is not genuine-merely because he has not notified the vacancy or applied for its release to my mind is wholly erroneous approach. 3. Coming now to the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer the same, in my opinion is not a proper order. The petitioner had in his application given the details of his need but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not apply his mind to his needs He has passed a laconic order rejecting the application for release without discussing the case of the petitioner. It appears that the tent Control and Eviction Officer deputed an-Inspector to make enquiry and to submit a report. The Inspector submitted a report on 4-12-1970. It appears that the tent Control and Eviction Officer deputed an-Inspector to make enquiry and to submit a report. The Inspector submitted a report on 4-12-1970. The inspector no doubt reported that the need of the landlord had not been established but a copy of this report was not given to the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity to meet the finding: of the Inspector. It appears that the Rent Control and Eviction officer on receipt of the report straight way proceeded to pass an order because his order is also of the same date as the report. This procedure adopted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is clearly, against the principles of natural justice and, as such, vitiates his order. The proper procedure for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was to have made available to the petitioner the report of the Inspector and to have given him an opportunity to meet the report and there after pass a reasoned order. He having failed to do so his order also cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer as well as of the State Government dated 4.12.1970, 13th April, 1971 and 11-12-1970 are quashed. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to restore the petitioner's application for release to its original number and to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made above. I, however, make no order as to costs.