GULATI, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution, arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1947. The petitioner is a Trust Motilal Bhimraj Charity Trust. It owned a big building in Collectorganj, Kanpur, bearing No. 5211, Moti Bhawan. It is a five storeyed building and is inhabited by 128 tenants, fetching a monthly rent of about Rs. 4,000/ -. With this in come the Trust runs various educational and charitable institutions. Each of the 128 tenants bears a separate number. Tenement No. 6 is a shop on the ground floor, which was in the tenancy of one Sidhnath Shukla, where he was carrying on the business of panmasala. Some times in 1966, the said Sidhnath Shukla fell ill and his illness conti nued until he died on May 12, 1970. During his lifetime he had in ducted into the shop the third respondent Madan Pal Singh. The petitioner Trust made an application for the release of the accommo dation of the shop in dispute in its favour on the ground that Sidh nath Shukla had stopped carrying on the business and the shop had fallen vacant. However, that application was rejected because the widow of Sidhnath Shukla asserted that the shop was still in her ten ancy and she was carrying on the business. After the death of Sidh nath Shukla, the shop was declared vacant and the petitioner Trust again applied for the release of the shop. The first respondent Madanpal Singh also applied for its allotment. It appears that Madanpal Singh secured the recommendation of one Motilal Delhwi. M. L. A. who later on became a Minister in the State of Uttar Pradesh Mr. Delhwi recommended that the file relating to the shop in dispute be summoned from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the District Magistrate may allot the same in favour of Sri Madanpal Singh. On coming to know of this the petitioner once again made an application for release and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the release application of the petitioner in default and transferred the file to the District Magistrate for allotment. The petitioner made another application for release and requested for the transfer of the case. On coming to know of this the petitioner once again made an application for release and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dismissed the release application of the petitioner in default and transferred the file to the District Magistrate for allotment. The petitioner made another application for release and requested for the transfer of the case. This application was allowed and the case was transferred from the file of Sri G. K. Tandon, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, to the file of Sri R. K. Srivastava, Magistrate 1st Class. Sri Srivastava deputed an Inspector to make an enquiry and on the report of the Inspector he allowed the application of the peti tioner for release and rejected the application of Madanpal Singh for allotment. Against this order the widow of the previous tenant, Sri Sidhnath Shukla, did not pursue the matter any further but Madan pal Singh approached the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. The State Government has set aside the order of the release in favour of the petitioner and has directed the Rent Control and Evic tion Officer to call for applications for allotment and to allot the same to a suitable person. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged this order by means of this petition. The petitioners case throughout has been that it needs the shop for its office as it employs large staff and a Manager and an independent office is essential. This plea of the petitioner has been ac cepted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The State Govern ment has rejected the plea of Madanpal Singh that he had entered into a partnership with Sidhnath Shukla and later had started his own business in the shop in dispute. According to the State Govern ment, this plea was not a genuine plea. In other words the State Gov ernment held that on the death of Sidhnath Shukla the shop in ques tion had fallen vacant and the occupation of Madanpal Singh was un authorised. After having recorded this finding, the State Govern ment proceeded to observe that the need of the petitioner trust also did not appear to be justified inasmuch as the shop was on the ground floor in a commercial locality and it would not be proper to allot the same to the petitioner trust for its office. After having recorded this finding, the State Govern ment proceeded to observe that the need of the petitioner trust also did not appear to be justified inasmuch as the shop was on the ground floor in a commercial locality and it would not be proper to allot the same to the petitioner trust for its office. The State Government thought that the shop should be allotted to a person for business purposes. The State Government has also relied upon the fact that the petitioner was running its office from a place on the top floor without controverting the plea of the petitioner that none of the tenements in the building was in its occupation or possession and the office work was being carried on from the premises of another tenant through his courtesy and that the arrangement was wholly unsatisfactory. This Court has in a large number of cases pointed out that when the accommodation falls vacant and the landlord wants to occupy it for his personal use, it is the duty of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allow such an application and to permit the landlord to occupy it. The State Government cannot force the landlord to let it out to a prospective tenant. The State Government has also no jurisdiction to refuse such an application for release on the ground that it would not be wise for the landlord to occupy it for his perso nal use. Such a consideration is wholly irrelevant. I have recently pointed out that if the landlord is prepared to sacrifice has rental income and to put the accommodation to its use, if it has fallen vacant within the meaning of the Act, then the Rent Control and Eviction authorities have no jurisdiction to refuse the application on the ground that such a course of action would be un wise on the part of the landlord. Of course if there is a sitting ten ant in the accommodation then the position would be different. In such a case the landlord can be allowed to evict the tenant only if his need is greater than that of the tenant. But if the accommodation is vacant and no sitting tenant is involved, the question of comparing the need of the landlord with the prospective tenant is simply not called for. In such a case the landlord can be allowed to evict the tenant only if his need is greater than that of the tenant. But if the accommodation is vacant and no sitting tenant is involved, the question of comparing the need of the landlord with the prospective tenant is simply not called for. If the landlord in the instant case wants to use the shop in dispute for its office and the shop having been declared to be va cant, in my opinion, the State Government had no option but to al low the request of the petitioner. The direction of the State Gov ernment that the matter should be remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for the purposes of inviting applications and for making allotment to a suitable tenant is wholly unauthorised. For the reasons stated above, it is not possible to upheld the order of the State Government. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the State Government dated June 19, 1972, is quashed. It may be noticed here that Madanpal Singh on whose instance the application under Section 7-F had been filed before the State Government has not filed a counter-affidavit nor has he put in appearance. The Standing Counsel tried to support the order of the State Government but in view of the observation made above, the order of the State Government is indefenceable. In the circumstances, I make no or der as to costs. .