R. L. GULATI, J. This petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (here inafter referred to as the Act.) The dispute relates to house No. 297-F Begam Ward, Pratapgarh. One Daryanamal was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute of which the 3rd respondent, Saheb Singh is the landlord. Daryana Mai built his own house. By an application dated June 8, 1970 he informed the respondent No. 2, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Paragraph that he would be shifting to his own newly built house but the accommodation to be vacated by him should not be allotted to any one as the petitioner, his nephew, who was living with him since long, would continue to occupy it. The petitioner also made a sepa rate application for allotment and on the following day, i. e. , on June 9, 1970 the respondent No. 2 passed the following order of allotment: - "since the applicant is the nephew of the tenant Sri Daryana Mai who has already shifted to his newly constructed house and the applicant has been continuing to reside in the above house since long, I do not think it expedient to oust him and declare vacancy. The possession of the applicant over the house in- question is regularised by issue of an allotment order. " The landlord, on coming to know of the allotment order, made an ap plication on June 19, 1970 saying that he needed the accommodation for his personal use and the same should be released in his favour. He also stated that similar application had been made by him earlier which remained indisposed of as Daryana Mai compromised that on the completion of his house he would handover the possession to him. The petitioner contested this application. Thereupon, the landlord mov ed another application dated July 14, 1970 alleging that the petitioner and Daryana Mai, who are the members of the same family, had con cealed the fact of the previous compromise and had obtained the allotment order by fraud and misrepresentation and the same should be cancelled. The petitioner contested this application. Thereupon, the landlord mov ed another application dated July 14, 1970 alleging that the petitioner and Daryana Mai, who are the members of the same family, had con cealed the fact of the previous compromise and had obtained the allotment order by fraud and misrepresentation and the same should be cancelled. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by his order dated October 5, 1970 rejected the release application of the landlord holding that the petitioner was not guilty of any fraud or misrepre sentation and it was not expedient to evict him under Section 7-A and then to notify the vacancy. Thereupon the landlord approached the State Government under Section 7-F of the Act. The State Gov ernment has allowed the revision of the landlord, has cancelled the allotment order in favour of the petitioner and has remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider and dispose of the landlords application for release and if the need of the land lord is not found to be genuine to notify a vacancy and to invite ap plications for allotment and thereafter to pass an order of allotment. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged this order of the State Government by this petition. The State Government has not accepted the plea of the landlord that the allotment order had been obtained by practicing fraud or misrepresentation inasmuch as there was no written compromise bet ween the landlord and the previous tenant Daryana Mai. However, the State Government has taken the view that it was necessary for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to have considered the applica tion of release of the landlord before making the order of allotment. As the Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not consider the appli cation of the landlord, it was necessary to cancel the allotment order and to remand the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh decision. Under Rule 6 of the Rent Control and Eviction Rules a landlord has been given the right to ask for the release of his house which has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant on the ground that he bona -fide needs the house for his personal occupation. Under Rule 6 of the Rent Control and Eviction Rules a landlord has been given the right to ask for the release of his house which has fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant on the ground that he bona -fide needs the house for his personal occupation. When such an applica tion is made all that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has to see is that the request of the landlord for personal occupation is a bona fide request. Once he finds that the need of the landlord is genuine and bona fide he has no option but to release the accommodation in favour of the landlord. At this stage since there is no sitting tenant involved, the question of assessing the need of the landlord or com paring it with the need of a prospective tenant does not arise. This is a settled view of this Court. , (See: Ram Surat Singh v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer A. I. R. 1965 Alld. 49 (F. B.) ). Ordinarily, an application under Rule 6 must be pending before proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are taken. But that can happen only if the landlord comes to know of the vacancy of the expected vacancy. Cases might arise where the landlord is kept in dark about the vacancy or the expected vacancy and the accommodation is allotted to another tenant. Unfortunately there is no provision in the Act requiring the vacancy or expected vacancy to be sotified so that the landlord may re quire the necessary knowledge. Indeed, this Court in State of U. P. v. Smt. Shiama Devi 1957 A. L. J. 630, has held that Rule 6 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act does not impose a duty on the Rent Control and Eviction Officer when an accommoda tion falls vacant of informing the landlord of the existence of the vacancy and of ascertaining whether the latter desires that the pre mises be released in his favour. The right of the landlord to have the accommodation released in his favour arises when it is asserted. In Sangam Lal v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division 1959 A. L. J. 69-Summary, a learned Judge of this Court has held that it is not necessary to hear the land lord before an order of allotment under Section 7 (3) is made. The right of the landlord to have the accommodation released in his favour arises when it is asserted. In Sangam Lal v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division 1959 A. L. J. 69-Summary, a learned Judge of this Court has held that it is not necessary to hear the land lord before an order of allotment under Section 7 (3) is made. Now this creates anomalous position. If the landlord does not become aware of this vacancy or of expected vacancy an allotment order may be made in favour of another. person without affording the landlord an opportunity of asserting his right of release under Rule 6. But such a situation is not likely to arise because normally a sitting ten ants tenancy does not come to an end unless he gives an intimation to the landlord and hands over possession to him of the house which he wants to vacate as is provided under Section 106 (A) (q) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the instant case, this course was not followed by the outgoing tenant Daryana Mai. He did not inform the landlord of his intention to vacate the house but surreptitiously sent an intimation to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to regularise the possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances it was open to the landlord to make an application for release when be came to know of the vacancy and to ask for the cancellation of the allotment order which had been made without affording him an opportunity of getting the house released in his favour. The contention that the application for release did not lie after the order for allotment had been made and the tenant had already taken possession of the house in pursuance of the allotment order can not be accepted. The contention that the application for release did not lie after the order for allotment had been made and the tenant had already taken possession of the house in pursuance of the allotment order can not be accepted. In Shrimati Ira Bitra v. A. K. Mandhyan and others 1965 A. L. J 434, a Division Bench of this Court has held that Rule 6 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Rules is an over-riding provision that can be enforced at any stage of the allotment proceed ings-whether under Section 7 or 7- A. In the circumstances of that case it was further held that the landlords application for release un der Rule 6 even though presented after proceedings had started aga inst her under Section 7-A of the Act was maintainable even though earlier an ex parte order of allotment had been passed in favour of the respondent. It is true that in that case the land-lady herself was in occupation of the accommodation in dispute and proceedings were taken to evict her to give effect to the allotment order and in the ins tant case the accommodation was in the occupation of the allottee, who was already living there but on principle it would make no dif ference. The landlords right to ask for the release of the accommo dation cannot be defeated merely because another person has succeed ed in obtaining an order of allotment in his favour surreptitiously and had also succeeded in occupying the same. The allotment order by itself does not create any tenancy in favour of the tenant. The allotment order is merely a direction to the landlord to let out the accommodation to a prospective tenant but so long as the landlord does not grant tenancy expressly or by conduct, the allottee does not acquire the statute of a tenant. It was thus open to the landlord to assert his right and to ask for the release of the accommodation for his personal use even if an allotment order had been made and the allottee had taken possession. In Syed Ajaz Ali Khan and others v. Mohammad Rafiq and others A. I. R. 1974 Alld. It was thus open to the landlord to assert his right and to ask for the release of the accommodation for his personal use even if an allotment order had been made and the allottee had taken possession. In Syed Ajaz Ali Khan and others v. Mohammad Rafiq and others A. I. R. 1974 Alld. 178, a Full Bench of this Court has held: "it cannot be said that once an allottee has entered into occu pation of the accommodation the power of the State Government to cancel the allotment order or to oust the occupant after an order of release, is exhausted and cannot be exercised. The order passed by a District Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 7 cannot be regarded as a final order because under the statute the final order is that of the State Government and if the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 7-F, cancels or revokes the order passed by the District Magistrate under Sec tion 7 (2) that order ceases to have force or validity. " Precisely this has happened in the instant case. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the release application of the landlord and made an order of allotment in favour of the petitioner. Both these orders were subject to the final decision by the State Govern ment under Section 7-F. The State Government has, for good rea sons, cancelled the allotment order and has remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for consideration of the landlords application for release. The State Government was fully competent to adopt such a course of action. Indeed, the State Government could itself have allowed to release application and cancelled the allot ment order but instead of doing that the State Government has re manded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to consider the application of the landlord afresh. In my opinion, in doing so the State Government has not infringed any provision of law or exceed ed its jurisdiction. It was then contended that the State Government should have remanded the case for re-consideration of the release application of the landlord without cancelling the allotment order in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion, it was necessary to cancel the allotment order so as to restore status-quo ante. It was then contended that the State Government should have remanded the case for re-consideration of the release application of the landlord without cancelling the allotment order in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion, it was necessary to cancel the allotment order so as to restore status-quo ante. It must be remembered that when the release application of the landlord comes to be considered there is no sitting or prospective tenant in the picture. Had the allot ment order remained in force, the allottee would have contested the release application. Such a contest is not contemplated by the law. Moreover, if the release application is ultimately allowed, the allot ment order in favour of the petitioner would have to be cancelled. The State Government has itself cancelled the allotment order instead of directing the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to do so in case the release application succeeds. In my opinion, the action of the State Government cannot be assailed on that ground. For all these reasons the petition fails and is dismissed. I how ever, make no order as to the costs. .